Early Philosophical Attempts to Explain Existence

The Milesians were the first to abandon the ideas set forth by the mythical believers when attempting to explain the origin of the natural world. The mythical believers held that divine origin was the direct cause of what had come to be. For example, as adapted from Hesiod, Chaos first came to be. Next came Gaia (Earth). Gaia brought forth Ouranos (Heaven). Bedded by Ouranos, Gaia gave birth to Oceanos and to Kronos who hated his mighty father. As can be seen, the mythical believers used the actions of gods to explain natural origin. On the other hand, the Milesians preferred to explain the same events in terms of natural elements such as water or air. They explained surface phenomena (visible to the naked eye) through underlying phenomena (core particles). Thusly, if two surface phenomena share an element in common, then their behavior must be similar in some way. Further, the Milesians used basic elements (i.e. water) or theoretical elements (i.e. the atom), or even a plurality of basic elements to describe the source of the natural world. The main difference between the Milesians and the mythical believers was their turn towards a scientific approach to finding answers, rather than attributing the source of the natural world to the actions of unseen Gods.

Thales, a Milesian and perhaps the first philosopher, purports water to be the first and originating element of the natural world. Aristotle comments, “Thales says the principle is water, getting the notion perhaps from seeing that the nutriment of all things to be moist.” Nearly all of the first philosophers believed that the principles of all things in matter were thus the original source of all being. Such a source persists indefinitely; perhaps changing its qualities or innate form, but the source remains the basis for all being, as nature is always preserved. Thales argued the principle element to be water, seeing, as Aristotle later explained, moistness to exist within all natural things. Additionally, Thales says that the earth itself rests (most often gently) on a body of water, further explaining his ideas of water as the principle element. Water is found in everything, everything must have originally come from water. However, a fault in his argument exists, as he fails to explain the diversity in things that exist. Thales admits the what, water, but does not explain the how, how water allows for natural diversity.

Anaximander, a student of Thales, explains the order of the world differently than his teacher. Anaximander argues that the earth remains in place and does not fall as a result of necessity. Anaximander’s earth is a cylindrically shaped object that remains in constant equilibrium. It is not in the best interest of the earth, both its center and its extremes, to move in any direction and it cannot move in opposite directions simultaneously. Therefore, it would seem obvious that an earth that does not want to move, cannot move in opposite directions and that relies on equilibrium to remain static would also be an earth that stays in place and does not fall simply because it behooves itself not to. In contrast, Thales previously argued that the earth stays in place and does not fall due to the fact that it rests on an enormous body of water. A fallacy exists in this argument, though, because Thales originated this idea of the earth resting on water from his observations that other things on earth themselves rest on water (i.e. a log), and not air. Then what does the body of water that the earth lies in rest upon? What keeps this earth-bearing body of water itself from falling out of the sky? Thales fails to explain this.

The Pythagoreans believed that at the core of everything lied numbers. There existed many reasons for this belief, but perhaps the strongest explanation came from numbers and their relation to sound and music. Kinship in natural things might have existed due to an underlying mathematical order in nature. Music was readily explainable by mathematics, and could possibly be used to explain numbers as the core being of other things in nature. The example set forth by the Pythagoreans can be summarized as follows. If one were to take a taut string of any length and place a bridge at its exact center, the note produced would be exactly twice as high as that produced without the bridge. This results in an octave having a ratio of 2:1. Were the bridge placed 2/3rds the way up the string, a musical fifth would be produced. 3/4ths the way up and the resultant is the musical fourth. Therefore, musical octaves can be explained in mathematical terms as being ratios (2:1, 3:2, 4:3, etc.). This meant that sound (a thing that exists in the natural world) was related principally in a very mathematical way. This suggests that other things existing in the natural world might also have at their core a mathematical explanation.

Parmenides denied the idea of either coming to be or perishing, rather choosing to believe that everything that ever was, is now, and forever will be in the natural world. Anaxagoras held very similar beliefs to the Parmenidean principle in that he also thought that nothing could come to be or perish. Anaxagoras held that there is a small portion of everything in everything. This relates well to the Parmenidean principle in that nothing new comes to be and nothing ever ceases to exist, however he elaborates his postulation by saying that these portions exist in everything. For example, there are portions of salt in salt water, wet in dry and wood in flesh. Anaxagoras differs slightly again by admitting the possibility of change due to the mixing and separation of the portions with which things are composed, but he does not allow for any individual portion to exist on its own. Everything is a part of everything else and cannot exist alone. At the base of both Parmenides and Anaxagoras’ arguments lie the theory that no thing can ever come to be and no thing will ever cease to exist, that everything that has ever and will ever exist is already here and in that quantity it will remain. Further explanation of their individual theories may differ, but at the core they share the same philosophy.

The Atomists held a view quite the opposite of Parmenides’ denial of the non-being. The Atomists postulated atoms and void (empty space) and it was this void that was crucial to their explanations of the natural order. The Atomists say that without a void, there would be no empty space and therefore, nowhere for motion or growth of the atoms of which things are composed. A world without empty space has no room to admit anything but itself. The Atomists preserved the void by claiming that its very existence is required to explain the possibility of motion, which itself is the cause of things coming to be (and the lack of motion the explanation of things ceasing to be). Additionally, they allowed for the void to exist simply because there was no less reason for it to exist than for it to not. Allowing for this void, and for the atoms within it to have motion, allows for compounds to be produced. Within the void every atom is separate from the next and when they collide with one another they become entangled and stay this way. Such collisions result in the formation of compounds, which thusly combine together, eventually forming the things of the natural world.