You are on page 1of 16

Agcaoili, Ma. Carmella Romana R. 2 Bio 5 PLURALISM Pluralism, by definition, means the condition of being multiple or plural.

. In philosophy, it is believed as the doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances and that it is the belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life. It is the metaphysical doctrine that reality consists of independent entities rather than one unchanging whole. Pluralism, appropriate to its name, is a concept used many different ways in Philosophy (see below). But, in general terms, it is the theory that there is more than one basic substance or principle. It is contrasted to Monism, which holds that ultimately there is just one kind of substance, and to Dualism, which holds that ultimately there are two kinds of substance in the universe (or, in Philosophy of Mind, that the mind and matter are two separate substances). Arguably, Dualism is a specific case of Pluralism. The concept of pluralism in philosophy indicates the belief that reality consists of many different things or kinds of things. In this sense, it is opposed to the concept of monism, which views all of reality as one substance or whole, or one instance of each kind of thing. The term is also used in a wider sense in several fields of philosophy, to express the idea that there can be no single explanatory system, or view of reality that can explain the totality of life; or that there are many different possible viewpoints or positions of equal validity and importance. In religion, law, and politics, pluralism refers to the co-existence of more than one belief system, legal structure, or political interest group. Societies incorporating a variety of ways of life, moral standards, and religions are referred to as pluralistic. Pluralism derives from the Latin plures, meaning "several" or "many," and it has formed the central concern of various intellectual traditions throughout the history of the West. Applied in philosophy, political theory, religion, and ethnic and

racial relations, pluralism challenges the notion that a single authority or group must dominate all others. Rather than accepting the imposition of conformity to either a single standard of truth or a center of power, whether it is moral, political, cultural, or religious, pluralists have defended the right to diversity and difference. At its most promising, pluralism thus forms the basis of tolerance and the essential limitation of power and authority on behalf of human freedom. Philosophical pluralism's core belief consists of the notion that humans do not simply discover and copy, through the use of reason, a unified reality that exists independently of them. Rather, our view of reality, or that which we take as truth, is always influenced by our cultural and historical context. Truth, accordingly, can never be absolute, static, strictly objective, and monolithic. On the contrary, it always contains elements of subjectivity and change, more of relativism than absolutism. In short, truth, and even reality itself, consist of the many rather than the one. Pluralism is a Greek Pre-Socratic school of philosophy of the 5th Century B.C., consisting of three major philosophers: Anaxagoras, Archelaus (5th Century B.C.) and Empedocles. In general terms, they attempted to reconcile the complete rejection of change by Parmenides and the Eleatic School, which generally speaking they accepted, with the apparently changing world of sense experience (things like birth and death and creation and destruction), and thereby find the basis for all change. Harshly opposed to pluralist atomistic ontology was the monism derived from Parmenides, with Plato and Aristotle among the first ones. For the Eleatic monism the Being is unique and immutable, while the Becoming is a not-being made of apparent materialization of Being itself. The Ionian philosopher Anaxagoras believed that all things have existed from the beginning as an endless number of infinitesimally small fragments of themselves, but in a confused and indistinguishable form. The segregation of like from unlike was carried out by a pure and independent thing called "Nous" (mind),

which also causes all motion. Some of his ideas presaged the later development of Atomism. Archelaus, a student of Anaxagoras, asserted that air and infinity are the principles of all things, that primitive Matter is air mingled with Mind, and that the principle of motion was the separation of hot from cold, from which he endeavored to explain the formation of the Earth and the creation of animals and humans. Empedocles was a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek colony in Sicily, and is best known for being the origin of the cosmogenic theory of the four classical elements (fire, air, water and earth) which he held to be simple, eternal and unalterable, and which are eternally mixed and separated by two divine powers, Love and Strife. Like the Eleatics, he held that it is not possible for something to come into existence from a non-existence, or vice versa, only that original materials are combined and recombined. Empedocles was also influenced by Pythagoreanism in his support for the doctrine of reincarnation. Pluralism as a philosophical doctrine is a concept used many different ways, but, in general terms; it is the theory that there is more than one basic substance or principle, whether it be the constitution of the universe, of the mind and body, the sources of truth, etc. The Pluralists rejected the idea that the diversity of nature can be reduced to a single principle (monism). Anaxagoras posited that nature contained an innumerable number of principles, while Empedocles reduced nature to four elements (fire, air, earth, and water) which could not be reduced to one another and which would be sufficient to explain change and diversity. Opposing the monistic metaphysics of Parmenides' Eleatic School, ancient proponents of pluralism include Empedocles (495435 B.C.E.), who held that everything is comprised of four elements (earth, air, fire, and water); Anaxagoras (500428 B.C.E.), who asserted that all things are made of up of bits of every thing; and Democritus (460370 B.C.E.), who asserted that all things are constituted by indivisible particles configured in different ways.

EMPEDOCLES (495 435 BCE) Empedocles was a philosopher and poet: one of the most important of the philosophers working before Socrates (the Presocratics), and a poet of outstanding ability and of great influence upon later poets such as Lucretius. He was born around 490 B.C. or 492 B.C. at Acragas (Agrigentum in Latin), a Greek colony in Sicily, to a distinguished and aristocratic family. His father, Meto or Meton, seems to have been instrumental in overthrowing Thrasydaeus, the tyrant of Agrigentum in 470 B.C. Empedocles' work survives only in fragments, but fragments in a far greater number than any of the other Pre-Socratics. His major work, "On Nature" (and possibly parts of a second work, "Purifications"), written in hexameter verse, exists in more than 150 fragments. He was a poet of outstanding ability, and of great influence on later poets such as Lucretius (99 - 55 B.C.) Empedocles was very familiar with the work of the Eleatic School and the Pythagoreans, and particularly of Parmenides. Like Pythagoras, Empedocles believed in the transmigration of the soul (reincarnation between humans, animals and even plants), and that all living things were on the same spiritual plane, like links in a chain. He therefore urged a vegetarian lifestyle, believing that the bodies of animals are the dwelling places of punished souls. He believed that wise people, who have learned the secret of life, are next to the divine and that their souls, free from the cycle of reincarnations, are able to rest in happiness for eternity. Like many of the other Pre-Socratics, he found Parmenides' claim that change is impossible unacceptable, and tried to find the basis of all change. Starting from the assumption (passed down from the Eleatics) that existence cannot pass into non-existence (or vice versa), Empedocles held that change, including what we call coming into existence and death, is only the mixture and separation of the four

indestructible and unchangeable elements (or "roots" as he called them): earth, air, fire and water. Empedocles offered the theory that it was not one element at the center of it all, but rather that all four elements fire, air, earth, and water could be found in everything. The four roots would exist in different degrees. Empedocles never used the term "element" (Greek: ) (stoicheion), which seems to have been first used by Plato. According to the different proportions in which these four indestructible and unchangeable elements are combined with each other the difference of the structure is produced. It is in the aggregation and segregation of elements thus arising, that Empedocles, like the atomists, found the real process which corresponds to what is popularly termed growth, increase or decrease. Nothing new comes or can come into being; the only change that can occur is a change in the juxtaposition of element with element. This theory of the four elements became the standard dogma for the next two thousand years. The four elements are able to create all things, including all living creatures, by being mixed in different combinations and proportions. Each of the elements however, retains its own characteristics in the mixture, and each is eternal and unchanging. Nothing can come from nothing nor be destroyed into nothing and therefore, in order to rescue the reality of the phenomenal world, there must be assumed to exist something eternal and unchanging beneath the constant change, growth and decay of the visible world. Empedocles then, transfers the changelessness that Parmenides attributes to the entire world to his four elements, and replaces the static singularity Parmenides world with a dynamic plurality. These four naturally occurring elements of the cosmos clearly represent a fundamental natural division of matter at the largest scale. The four elements are, however, simple, eternal, and unalterable, and as change is the consequence of their mixture and separation, it was also necessary to suppose the existence of moving powers - to bring about mixture and separation. The four elements are eternally brought into union, and eternally parted from each other, by two divine powers, Love and Strife. The many elements (four in number)

come together and blend under the agency of Love, and they are driven apart by Strife, in a continual alternation. According to Empedocles, all matter periodically contracts and expands. Under the power of Love everything unites until there is only "The One" - a divine and homogeneous sphere. Then the sphere dissolves under the rising power of Strife and the world is established in a series of stages until it reaches a state of complete dissolution. Empedocles seems to describe such a cosmogony in other passages. He posits a stage in which Love is totally dominant and all things are unified into a Sphere. Since this spherical unity includes the elements, they are presumably thoroughly intermingled with one another. The Sphere is the initial stage in the formation of the cosmos; it is not itself a cosmos. The latter requires a separation of elements into identifiable masses of earth, air, water, and fire, even though there might still be some (much diminished) presence of each element within each of the four masses. The elements of earth, water, air and fire would predominate in the respective masses, making them identifiable as such. The mass of earth is at the center; water more or less surrounds the earth. Air forms the next layer. From fire at the periphery, the sun comes to be as a distinct entity. This geocentric formation is what the ancients usually recognized to be our cosmos. Since it is Strife that separates the elements, the cosmogony so described is presumably dependent on Strife's influence. The function of Love is to produce union; that of Strife, to break it up again. Aristotle, however, rightly points out that in another sense it is Love that divides and Strife that unites. When the Sphere is broken up by Strife, the result is that all the Fire, for instance, which was contained in it comes together and becomes one; and again, when the elements are brought together once more by Love, the mass of each is divided. In another place, he says that, while Strife is assumed as the cause of destruction, and does, in fact, destroy the Sphere, it really gives birth to everything else in so doing. It follows that we must carefully distinguish between the Love of Empedocles and that "attraction of like for like" to which he also attributed an important part in the formation of the world. The latter is not an

element distinct from the others; it depends on the proper nature of each element, and is only able to take effect when Strife divides the Sphere. Love, on the contrary, produces an attraction of unlikes. As the best and original state, there was a time when the pure elements and the two powers co-existed in a condition of rest and inertness in the form of a sphere. The elements existed together in their purity, without mixture and separation, and the uniting power of Love predominated in the sphere: the separating power of Strife guarded the extreme edges of the sphere. Since that time, strife gained more sway and the bond which kept the pure elementary substances together in the sphere was dissolved. The elements became the world of phenomena we see today, full of contrasts and oppositions, operated on by both Love and Strife. The sphere being the embodiment of pure existence is the embodiment or representative of god. Empedocles assumed a cyclical universe whereby the elements return and prepare the formation of the sphere for the next period of the universe. Since the time of the sphere, Strife has gained more sway; and the actual world is full of contrasts and oppositions, due to the combined action of both principles. Empedocles attempted to explain the separation of elements, the formation of earth and sea, of Sun and Moon, of atmosphere. He also dealt with the first origin of plants and animals, and with the physiology of humans. As the elements entered into combinations, there appeared strange results - heads without necks, arms without shoulders. Then as these fragmentary structures met, there were seen horned heads on human bodies, bodies of oxen with human heads, and figures of double sex. But most of these products of natural forces disappeared as suddenly as they arose; only in those rare cases where the parts were found to be adapted to each other, did the complex structures last. Thus the organic universe sprang from spontaneous aggregations, which suited each other as if this had been intended. Soon various influences reduced the creatures of double sex to a male and a female, and the world was replenished with organic life. It is possible to see this theory as an anticipation of Darwin's theory of natural selection, although Empedocles was not trying to explain evolution.

Empedocles believed that the organic universe sprang from spontaneous aggregations of parts, and only in those rare cases where the parts were found to be adapted to each other, did the complex structures last (arguably a crude anticipation of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection). He assumed a cyclical universe, whereby the elements would return to the harmony of the sphere in preparation for the next period of the universe. ANAXAGORAS (500428 B.C.E.) Anaxagoras was from Clazomenae, and Theophrastus tells us that his father's name was Hegesibulus. The tradition was that he neglected his possessions to follow science. It is certain, at any rate, that already in the fourth century he was regarded as the type of the man who leads the "theoretic life." Of course the story of his contempt for worldly goods was seized on later by the historical novelist and tricked out with the usual apophthegms. These do not concern us here. One incident belonging to the early manhood of Anaxagoras is recorded, namely, the fall of a huge meteoric stone into the Aegospotami in 468-67 B.C. Our authorities tell us he predicted this phenomenon, which is plainly absurd. But we shall see reason to believe that it may have occasioned one of his most striking departures from the earlier cosmology, and led to his adoption of the very view for which he was condemned at Athens. At all events, the fall of the stone made a profound impression at the time, and it was still shown to tourists in the days of Pliny and Plutarch. Anaxagoras wrote at least one book of philosophy, but only fragments of the first part of this have survived in work of Simplicius of Cilicia in the 6th Century A.D. Anaxagoras took the theories of four roots a step further by declaring that reality can be reduced to an infinite number of seeds. Not unlike Empedocles hypothesis, these seeds contain elements of everything and are in everything, yet certain elements are there in greater abundance, creating life's myriad diversity. The statement that there is a portion of everything in everything is not to be understood as referring simply to the original mixture of things before the formation of the worlds. On the contrary, even now "all things are together," and everything,

however small and however great, has an equal number of "portions. A smaller particle of matter could only contain a smaller number of portions, if one of those portions ceased to be; but if anything is, in the full Parmenidean sense, it is impossible that mere division should make it cease to be. Matter is infinitely divisible; for there is no least thing, any more than there is a greatest. But however great or small a body may be, it contains just the same number of "portions," that is, a portion of everything. What are these "things" of which everything contains a portion? It once was usual to represent the theory of Anaxagoras as if he had said that wheat, for instance, contained small particles of flesh, blood, bones, and the like; but we have just seen that matter is infinitely divisible, and that there are as many "portions" in the smallest particle as in the greatest. That is fatal to the old view. However far we carry division, we can never reach anything "unmixed," so there can be no such thing as a particle of simple nature, however minute. The difference, then, between the theory of Anaxagoras and that of Empedocles is this. Empedocles had taught that, if you divide the various things which make up this world, and in particular the parts of the body, such as flesh, bones, and the like, far enough, you come to the four "roots" or elements, which are, accordingly, the ultimate reality. Anaxagoras held that, however far you may divide any of these things -- and they are infinitely divisible -- you never come to a part so small that it does not contain portions of all the opposites. On the other hand, everything can pass into everything else just because the "seeds," as he called them, of each form of matter contain a portion of everything, that is, of all the opposites, though in different proportions. If we are to use the word "element" at all, it is these seeds that are the elements in the system of Anaxagoras. Anaxagoras developed his metaphysical theories from his cosmological theory. He accepted the ideas of Parmenides and the Eleatics that the senses cannot be trusted and that any apparent change is merely a rearrangement of the unchanging, timeless and indestructible ingredients of the universe. Not only then is it impossible for things to come into being (or to cease to be), he also held that there is a share of everything in everything, and that the original ingredients of the

cosmos are effectively omnipresent (e.g. he argued that the food an animal eats turns into bone, hair, flesh, etc, so it must already contain all of those constituents within it). He denied that there is any limit to the smallness or largeness of the particles of the original cosmic ingredients, so that infinitesimally small fragments of all other ingredients can still be present within an object which appears to consist entirely of just one material (presaging to some extent the ideas of Atomism). All things have existed from the beginning. But originally they existed in infinitesimally small fragments of themselves, endless in number and inextricably combined. All things existed in this mass, but in a confused and indistinguishable form. There were the seeds (spermata) or miniatures of wheat and flesh and gold in the primitive mixture; but these parts, of like nature with their wholes (the homoiomereiai of Aristotle), had to be eliminated from the complex mass before they could receive a definite name and character. Mind arranged the segregation of like from unlike. This peculiar thing, called Mind (Nous), was no less illimitable than the chaotic mass, but, unlike the logos of Heraclitus, it stood pure and independent, a thing of finer texture, alike in all its manifestations and everywhere the same. This subtle agent, possessed of all knowledge and power, is especially seen ruling in all the forms of life. According to Anaxagoras, the agent responsible for the rotation and separation of the primordial mixture is Mind or nous: And when Mind began to cause motion, separating off proceeded to occur from all that was moved, and all that Mind moved was separated apart, and as things were being moved and separated apart, the rotation caused much more separating apart to occur. Mind serves simply as the initial cause for the motion, and once the rotation is occurring, the momentum sets everything else into place. In this instance it is tempting to assign a rather deistic function to Mind. In other passages, however, Mind is depicted as ruling the rotation and setting everything in order as well as having supreme power and knowledge of all things. Mind causes motion. It rotated the primitive mixture, starting in one corner or point, and gradually extended until it gave distinctness and reality to the aggregates of like parts, working something like a centrifuge, and eventually

creating the known cosmos. But even after it had done its best, the original intermixture of things was not wholly overcome. No one thing in the world is ever abruptly separated, as by the blow of an axe, from the rest of things. Anaxagoras is adamant that nous is completely different from the ingredients that constituted the original mixture. It is the only thing to which the Everything-inEverything principle does not apply. Mind is present to some things, but it is not ingredients as flesh and blood are ingredients in a dog. Anaxagoras claims that if nous were just another ingredient, it could neither know nor rule in the way that it does. Mind plays a number of roles in Anaxagoras' system. First, it inaugurates the rotation of the mass of ingredients; it then controls that rotation, and the local rotations that take place within the large whirl that is the whole cosmos, nous then is not only first cause, it also, one might say, is the preserver of order in the cosmos, as it maintains the rotations that govern all the natural processes. Anaxagoras does not explain how these processes work, or how nous can affect the ingredients. The idea of mind as the supreme ordering principle is the most captivating aspect of his philosophy. Anaxagoras says that "mind is something infinite and selfcontrolling, and that is has been mixed with no thing, but is alone itself by itself." Unfortunately this is nearly all he has to say about mind. Neither does he go into detailing the nature of mind, nor does he present a theory that explains the unfolding of reality on basis of mind. Anaxagoras' concept of mind stands like an overture without a symphony. The formation of a world starts with a rotational motion which Nous imparts to a portion of the mixed mass in which "all things are together, and this rotational motion gradually extends over a wider and wider space. Its rapidity produced a separation of the rare and the dense, the cold and the hot, the dark and the light, the moist and the dry. This separation produces two great masses, the one consisting mostly of the rare, hot, light, and dry, called the "Aether"; the other, in which the opposite qualities predominate, called "Air. Of these the Aether or Fire took the outside while the Air occupied the center.

The next stage is the separation of the air into clouds, water, earth, and stones. In this Anaxagoras follows Anaximenes closely. In his account of the origin of the heavenly bodies, however, he showed himself more original. We read that stones "rush outwards more than water," and we learn from the doxographers that the heavenly bodies were explained as stones torn from the earth by the rapidity of its rotation and made red-hot by the speed of their own motion. Perhaps the fall of the meteoric stone at Aegospotami had something to do with the origin of this theory. It will also be observed that it necessarily implies the rotation of the flat earth along with the "eddy" (din). DEMOCRITUS (460 - 370 B.C.) Democritus was born in Abdera, a town in Thrace in northern Greece, which had originally been settled by Greek colonists from the Ionian city of Teos in (present-day Turkey). His date of birth is usually given as 460 B.C., although some authorities argue for up to ten years earlier, and some for a few years later. His greatest influence was certainly Leucippus, with whom he is credited as co-founding Atomism. In around 440 B.C. or 430 B.C., Leucippus had founded a school at Abdera, and Democritus became his star pupil. There are no existing writings which can be positively attributed to Leucippus, and so it is virtually impossible to identify which ideas were unique to Democritus and which are Leucippus', or any views about which they disagreed. Democritus was known for his disinterestedness, modesty and simplicity, and appeared to live solely for his studies; declining the public honors he was offered. One story has him deliberately blinding himself in order to be less disturbed in his pursuits, although it is more likely that he lost his sight in old age. He was always cheerful and ready to see the comical side of life, and he was affectionately known as the "Laughing Philosopher" (although some writers maintain that he laughed at the foolishness of other people and was also known as "The Mocker"). His knowledge of natural phenomena (such as diagnosing illnesses and predicting the weather) gave him the reputation of being something of a prophet or soothsayer.

It is believed that he died at the age of 90, in about 370 B.C., although some writers have him living to over a hundred years of age. Like many other Pre-Socratic philosophies, the Atomism of Leucippus and Democritus was largely a response to the unacceptable claim of Parmenides that change was impossible without something coming from nothing (which is itself impossible), and thus any perceived change or movement was merely illusory. In the Atomist version, there are multiple unchanging material principles which constantly rearrange themselves in order to effect what we see as changes. These principles are very small, indivisible and indestructible building blocks known as atoms (from the Greek "atomos", meaning "uncuttable"). These particles were invisible to the human eye yet ubiquitous in their myriad combinations, comprising what is commonly called reality. All of reality and all the objects in the universe are composed of different arrangements of these eternal atoms and an infinite void, in which they form different combinations and shapes. Ancient sources describe atomism as one of a number of attempts by early Greek natural philosophers to respond to the challenge offered by Parmenides. Despite occasional challenges, this is how its motivation is generally interpreted by scholars today. Parmenides had argued that it is impossible for there to be change without something coming from nothing. Since the idea that something could come from nothing was generally agreed to be impossible, Parmenides argued that change is merely illusory. In response, Leucippus and Democritus along with other Pre-socratic pluralists such as Empedocles and Anaxagoras, developed systems that made change possible by showing that it does not require that something should come to be from nothing. These responses to Parmenides suppose that there are multiple unchanging material principles, which persist and merely rearrange themselves to form the changing world of appearances. In the atomist version, these unchanging material principles are indivisible particles, the atoms: the atomists are said to have taken the idea that there is a lower limit to divisibility to answer Zeno's paradoxes about the impossibility of traversing infinitely divisible magnitudes. Change, they explained, is an observation that does not deceive the

senses; change is real, it happens on account of the recombination of more rudimentary substances. Democritus expanded the atomic theory of Leucippus. He maintained the impossibility of dividing things ad infinitum. From the difficulty of assigning a beginning of time, he argued the eternity of existing nature, of void space, and of motion. He supposed the atoms, which are originally similar, to be impenetrable and have a density proportionate to their volume. All motions are the result of active and passive affection. He drew a distinction between primary motion and its secondary effects, that is, impulse and reaction. This is the basis of the law of necessity, by which all things in nature are ruled. The worlds which we see with all their properties of immensity, resemblance, and dissimilitude result from the endless multiplicity of falling atoms. Democritus, along with Leucippus and Epicurus, proposed the earliest views on the shapes and connectivity of atoms. They reasoned that the solidness of the material corresponded to the shape of the atoms involved. Thus, iron atoms are solid and strong with hooks that lock them into a solid; water atoms are smooth and slippery; salt atoms, because of their taste, are sharp and pointed; and air atoms are light and whirling, pervading all other materials. Democritus was the main proponent of this view. Using analogies from our sense experiences, he gave a picture or an image of an atom that distinguished them from each other by their shape, their size, and the arrangement of their parts. Moreover, connections were explained by material links in which single atoms were supplied with attachments: some with hooks and eyes others with balls and sockets. The moving atoms inevitably collide in space, which in some cases causes them to be deflected like billiard balls, and in other cases, when the shapes of two atoms match in a way that they can interlock, causes them to build clusters upon collision, thereby forming substances which make up the objects of our perception. The atomistic void hypothesis was a response to the paradoxes of Parmenides and Zeno, the founders of metaphysical logic, who put forth difficult to answer arguments in favor of the idea that there can be no movement. They held that any movement would require a voidwhich is nothingbut a nothing cannot

exist. The Parmenidean position was "You say there 'is' a void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore there is not the void." The position of Parmenides appeared validated by the observation that where there seems to be nothing there is air, and indeed even where there is not matter there is something, for instance light waves. According to the atomists, nature exists only of two things, namely atoms and the void that surrounds them. Leucippus and Democritus thought that there are many different kinds of atoms, each distinct in shape and size and that all atoms move around in space The atomists agreed that motion required a void, but simply ignored the argument of Parmenides on the grounds that motion was an observable fact. Therefore, they asserted, there must be a void. This idea survived in a refined version as Newton's theory of absolute space, which met the logical requirements of attributing reality to not-being. Einstein's theory of relativity provided a new answer to Parmenides and Zeno, with the insight that space by itself is relative and cannot be separated from time as part of a generally curved space-time manifold. Consequently, Newton's refinement is now considered superfluous. SOURCES