To Be or Not to Be: There Is No Choice

Parmenides of Elea thought extensively about the nature of reality. He argued that there are only two paths for inquiry: either what-is is, or what-is-not is. He concludes that what-is is necessary. Indeed, it is a contradiction to say that what-is-not is. Moreover, he says that one cannot know what-is-not because it does not exist. Contradictions defy the rules of reason, and so Parmenides states that the contradictory path cannot be investigated.

Logically, Parmenides has presented a disjunction with tautological necessity. He presents what is and its opposite, and then says that either one or the other is true. This disjunction is necessarily true because if either of his propositions is false, then its opposite is true, in which case the disjunction is true. In order to show that what-is is the only valid option, he assumes that we can know things which are. He then proceeds to state that what-is-not is not knowable. If things which are can be known and what-is-not is not knowable, then what-is-not is not. This leads to the conclusion that what-is and not what-is-not are true. In other words, what-is is necessary.

Next, he states, "Just one story of a route is still left: that it is. On this there are signs very many, that what-is is ungenerated and imperishable, a whole of a single kind, unshaken, and complete" (Curd, 59). Being, because it is the substance of all that is, could not have come from something else which exists because causes precede effects, and being must be coextensive with anything which is. Anything which could generate being would participate in it, and so what-is must be ungenerated. He also says, "Now was it ever, nor will it be, since it is now, all together one, holding together" (Curd, 59). This seems to contradict experience, but it follows from the logic of his argument. Consequently, either Parmenides' propositions are false, or our experience deceives us about the nature of reality. Perhaps this is why he says, "do not let habit, rich in experience, compel you along this route to direct an aimless eye and an echoing ear and tongue, but judge by reasoning the much-contested examination spoken by me" (Curd, 59).

Hence Parmenides provides a well-reasoned and non-contradictory account of being. He shows that it is necessary and ungenerated. However, his account implies that human experience obscures the true nature of reality. For Parmenides, the world may not be as it seems. Nonetheless, Parmenides concludes that the question of is or is not has been decided by necessity, and that it is not possible to think that non-being is.

The Non-Paradoxical Paradoxes of Heraclitus

During his lifetime, Heraclitus of Ephesus thought about ethics, cosmology, and the nature of being. He used paradoxes to point out the complexities involved in conceiving the nature of reality. These paradoxes show that the plurality of things are in some way united. Sometimes his statements seem contradictory at first, but they may in fact point to logical inferences which could resolve the contradiction. For example, he says that "An unapparent connection (harmonia) is stronger than an apparent one" (Curd, 45). If the apparent is what is material and visible, then the form, which is intelligible but not visible, could be the unapparent unifying factor in the connection.

Indeed, Heraclitus states that "What is opposed brings together; the finest harmony is composed of things at variance, and everything comes to be in accordance with strife" (Curd, 47). Unity consists of elements in tension held together by a single overarching form. This is as true of an artwork as it is of a tree. The branches, roots, leaves, and trunk present a plurality of things held in unity by the form of the whole tree. This is not a Platonic form, but rather the sort of form that an artist imposes onto marble. The tension in the Laocoon Group comprises a single form. Similarly, the tension from the centrifugal motion of planets and the gravity of the sun results in a unified system. While Heraclitus would not have known these particular examples, they seem adequate for describing the sort of unity about which he was thinking.

Moreover, Heraclitus reflects on the nature of being. He says, "We step into and we do not step into the same rivers. We are and we are not" (Curd, 45). He seems to mean that things which are changing exist in a perpetual state of flux. While I certainly exist, I am not the same now as I was when I began writing this sentence. I am always changing, but there seems to be something intelligible that does not change. Otherwise I would have to introduce myself anew each day, and we would also be unable to name rivers. 

Indeed, He says that "This kosmos, the same for all, none of gods nor humans made, but it is always and is and shall be: an ever-living fire, kindled in measures and extinguished in measures" (Curd, 45). The cosmos, like fire, is perpetually in a state of flux. It comes into being and goes out of being continually.  Perhaps this is why he says that "Changing it rests" (Curd, 46). One of the unchanging rules of the cosmos, it seems, is that it continually changes. By saying that the cosmos is always changing, Heraclitus also is stating that the cosmos has unchanging principles.

Heraclitus uses paradoxes to highlight the underlying nature of things. He posits that tension and unity occur simultaneously, and he seems to think that the cosmos is constantly changing. These theories seem to be self-contradictory, but they are explainable. However, this requires some inference from Heraclitus' own words. Even so, he offers very accurate insights into the nature of the world in which we live.

Pythagoras and the Numerical Cosmos

Although Pythagorean philosophy dealt with subjects as wide ranging as politics and religion, mathematics formed the basis of the Pythagorean conception of the universe. Aristotle records that "in numbers they thought they observed many resemblances to things that are and that come to be" (Curd, 28). The Pythagoreans recognized the numerical principles underlying many observable phenomena. Because mathematical principles correspond to so many physical properties of the world, it makes sense for the Pythagoreans to pursue mathematics in their cosmology.

Indeed, Aristotle says that "they supposed the elements of numbers to be the elements of all things that are" (Curd, 28). Unlike the Milesians, the Pythagoreans held the first principle to be mathematical, a non-material source. Anaximander may have come closest to this sort of view when he posited the boundless as the first principle. However, the boundless was unlimited matter. The Pythagoreans differ insofar as their first principle is non-material. In this regard, they may have been closer to Xenophanes, who believed in a prime, eternal, and immutable god. Yet it is unclear whether or not Xenophanes held this god to be material. He certainly did not attribute anthropomorphic traits to it, but it is not clear that he held this god to be immaterial.

Consequently, the Pythagoreans contribute a unique conception of the cosmos to Greek philosophy. They maintain that the underlying stuff of the universe is mathematical. Additionally, their first principle is uniquely non-material. Mathematical principles are more intelligible than tangible, so this provides a more abstract cosmology than had been presented by Xenophanes or the Milesians.

Thinking About the Gods: Xenophanes and Reasonable Theology

Working in the 6th century BCE, Xenophanes developed a number of ideas about the nature of divinity. The anthropomorphic gods of Homer and Hesiod received the title of "divine," though they had the same immorality and strife as mere mortals. Xenophanes seems to have reasoned that if the divine is good, then gods must not be like the gods described by Homer and Hesiod. He concludes that it is the nature of divinity to be one thing, good, unchanging, and eternal.

Indeed, Xenophanes challenges the characterization of the gods in the mythopoetic tradition when he says:

"Praise the man who after drinking behaves nobly in that he possesses memory and aims for excellence and relates neither battles of Titans nor Giants nor Centaurs - the fictions of our fathers - nor violent conflicts; there is no use in these, but it is good always to have high regard for the gods" (Curd, 32).

He specifically calls the traditional myths "fictions." These stories, he seems to think, mischaracterize the gods. However, he does not reject the entire notion of divinity. He thinks that men should be pious, despite these incorrect myths.

How then, if the myths are false, can humankind hope to know truth? Xenophanes posits natural reason as a means of coming to knowledge. He says, "By no means did the gods intimate all things to mortals from the beginning, but in time, inquiring, they discover better" (Curd, 34). Hence he rejects revelation, so often invoked of the Muses in the poetic tradition of the time. Instead of divine inspiration, humans come to truth through rational inquiry. 

Additionally, Xenophanes seems to think that it is possible to learn things about the divine using human reason. He holds that there is "One god, greatest among gods and men, not at all like mortals in form or thought" (Curd, 35). Unfortunately, only fragments of his ideas remain today. His reasoning is not fully recorded. However, he probably recognized that if a god is the highest being, then there cannot be anything higher. Furthermore, anything which is different from the best is not itself the best. In all likelihood, this line of reasoning led him to conclude that the divine is one. It may also explain his belief that god is immutable and eternal.

Ultimately, Xenophanes applies the ideas of natural philosophy to the mythopoetic tradition which he had inherited. He recognizes that the ideas of divinity in the tradition entail certain necessary consequences which are different from the characterizations of the gods found in the myths of the day. Consequently, he argues for a modified conception of the gods based on a prime divinity which is immutable and eternal.

The Milesians and the Origins of the Cosmos

Many of the early natural philosophers from Miletus attempted to provide theories about the origins of the universe. They sought natural descriptions of the physical world. They wished to find the stuff which makes up all other things.

On the one hand, Thales conceived of the material world as water existing in various densities. Curd records Aristotle's description of Thales' philosophy, writing, "For there must be one or more natures from the rest come to be, while it is preserved. However, they do not all agree about how many or what kinds of such principles there are, but Thales...stated it to be water" (Curd, 15). For Thales, the material world is essentially water. This one element, he thinks, is the source of the other elements.

On the other hand, Anaximander argues that the first principle is indefinite, indestructible, and infinite.  He held that "the arhke is neither water nor any of the other things called elements, but some nature which is apeiron, out of which come to be all the heavens and the worlds in them" (Curd, 17). This indefinite cause brings dualities such as hot and cold into existence. These then result in the material world, including fire and the stellar world.

Unlike Anaximander, Anaximenes thought that the underlying stuff of the cosmos was an element. "Anaximenes...like Anaximander, declares that the underlying nature is one and unlimited [apeiron] but not indeterminate, as Anaximander held, but definite, saying that it is air" (Curd, 19). Thus he synthesizes the elemental explanation of Thales and the apeiron of Anaximander to come to his own theory. He finds that air is the unlimited substance of the cosmos.

Introduction to the Presocratics

According to ancient tradition, philosophy began when Thales of Miletus correctly predicted the solar eclipse of 585 BCE. Ancient historians of philosophy speculated about the reasons for the birth of philosophy in Miletus. The Milesians shared an outlook on the world that indicates the beginnings of philosophical ways of thinking about reality.

Curd explains that part of this was "a willingness to speculate and give reasons based on evidence and argument" (Curd 2011, 2). Another major part was "a commitment to the view that the natural world (the entire universe) can be explained without needing to refer to anything beyond nature itself" (Curd 2011, 2). Hence philosophy began when superstition and mythology became apparently insufficient to explain phenomena which observation, experimentation, and reasoning could predict or explain.

Science and philosophy came from a specific way of thinking - and by extension talking - about the world. This method of discourse required evidence, logic, and experimentation. Problems which superstition and mythology had previously answered were now within the domain of human knowledge. Why do the stars move in the manner that they do? Mathematical principles can explain and predict that. What is the stuff that the world is made of? Various theories can account for certain features of nature, and the theory that is most consistent with observations of the natural world is best. This way of thinking allowed for disputation and argumentation, making it possible for human knowledge to advance. Prior to this way of thinking, people accepted theories because of who gave them (namely the gods). Now evidence and logical consequence became the sources of merit for explanations of the world.

Introduction

Hello all,

I am Joseph Clarkson, a University Scholar at Baylor University studying Classics, Philosophy, and Political Science. Within philosophy, my primary interests are ethics and politics. I am curious about what it means to live well, and how we can do that together as a society.

Outside of school, I enjoy hiking, landscape and wildlife photography, and record collecting. I hiked trails in many Texas State Parks, and I hope to one day visit all of the national parks. As an amateur photographer, I mostly use a Canon Rebel t5i and a Pentax k1000, which shoots 35mm film. My record collection currently contains a mixture of blues, folk, country, rock, and experimental albums.

I am studying classical philosophy not only because it is required for all philosophy majors, but also because the relations between the ancient world and our contemporary ways of thinking are fascinating to me. Many of the problems introduced by the ancient philosophers are stilling being debated today through the inherited intellectual tradition of the western world. So my hope for this class is that it will help me to better understand both the thought of the classical world and also the philosophical heritage of the contemporary philosopher.

Philosophy initially attracted me because of its methods. Early in high school, I began competing in Team Policy debate, and so I began to read about argumentation, logic, and dialectic. This led me to philosophy, and my interest in the subject has only expanded since then. I now care less about winning debates and more about discovering the truth. Hence philosophy has evolved from a mere means to an end in itself for me.

30 More Songs That You Should Know

Last September, I released a list of thirty songs that I thought people needed to hear. Well, it's been a year, and I suppose it's time for a new list. Here are thirty more songs that you should know:

• Into The Wide - Delta Spirit
• Open Ended Life - The Avett Brothers
• 90 Miles To Santa Fe - Blue Bear
• Tessellate - Alt-J
• People - Kye Kye
• 1904 - The Tallest Man On Earth
• House of the Rising Sun - The Animals
• Ya Hey - Vampire Weekend
• The Moon Song - Karen O & Ezra Koenig
• Streetwalker - Delta Spirit
• Grow Old With Me - Tom Odell
• Keep You - Wild Belle
• Everybody Needs Love - Drive-By Truckers
• Ill With Want - The Avett Brothers
• Ends of the Earth - Lord Huron
• Under Mountain, Under Ground - The Lighthouse and The Whaler
• Le Temps De L'amour - Françoise Hardy
• I'm Leaving - Low Roar
• A Long Time Ago - First Aid Kit
• Live On - Delta Spirit
• How Long Must I Wait - Dr. Dog
• Saw You First - Givers
• Saint Therese - The Stillwater Hobos
• Cruel - St. Vincent
• The Weary Kind - Ryan Bingham
• Dreams (2am) - Kye Kye
• Juarez - Augustines
• Cruel And Beautiful World - Grouplove
• Shake Me Down - Cage The Elephant
• Talking Backwards - Real Estate

Those are the songs that I am in love with at the moment, and I hope that you enjoy them!

What Frozen's "Let It Go" Actually Means

Yesterday I published an article examining the meaning of the song "Let It Go" from Disney's 2013 animated musical Frozen. The article was met with general acclaim, though I expected quite the opposite reaction. However, I have since come to realize that I completely misinterpreted the song.

The mistake, I believe, comes from the absence of a translational key. Some have speculated that the context provides such a key, indicating that the song is about a girl embracing her magical powers. Others have claimed that the song is actually embracing moral relativism. The truth is, I believe, that the song is a bathroom anthem of sorts.

The translational key, the Rosetta Stone for interpreting the song, in my opinion, is this: "letting it go" refers to going pee. Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming this for the perhaps comical potty humor that it implies. No, I am merely seeking the truth, attempting to unlock the true intent and meaning of the artists who created this song.

Let's see how the song reads when viewed through this lens:

The snow glows white on the mountain tonight
Not a footprint to be seen
A kingdom of isolation,
And it looks like I’m the queen.

Here the artists are clearly laying the scene for the deed. Indeed, they choose an almost perfect setting. How many of us can claim to never have desired to do such a thing in such a setting?

The wind is howling like this swirling storm inside
Couldn’t keep it in, heaven knows I tried

Here the artists conjure up that oh-so-relatable feeling which we have all experienced on long car trips and such. It is that feeling that we get when we have drank too much, have been holding it in for hours, and can see nary a rest stop in sight.

Don’t let them in, don’t let them see
Be the good girl you always have to be
Conceal, don’t feel, don’t let them know
Well, now they know

We all know that there is a certain taboo surrounding certain bodily functions which this song appears to be about. It is the same taboo that leads us to say "number one" instead of "pee." Due to this taboo, the artists feel that they cannot be honest or open about these bodily functions, but now people know that she's really got to go, so she decides to:

Let it go, let it go
Can’t hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go
Turn away and slam the door

The bathroom door, that is. With the proper translational key, it is apparent that this chorus is about going pee, not about using magical powers, as some have suggested.

I don’t care
What they’re going to say
Let the storm rage on,
The cold never bothered me anyway

In this icy wonderland, one is free to relieve oneself. People may judge, but who cares? Just let the storm rage on. Be free to go pee.

It’s funny how some distance
Makes everything seem small
And the fears that once controlled me
Can’t get to me at all

With the taboo that accompanies the subject, it is easy to become controlled by fear, to begin calling it "number one," to skirt around the subject as though it were a venomous snake. But through taking a leak in the fresh snow, we can rise above those fears. Out on a cold, freezing mountain, we can realize how absurd our fears are, and then we are free to pee.

It’s time to see what I can do
To test the limits and break through
No right, no wrong, no rules for me
I’m free

Have you ever timed yourself peeing and tried to break your record? This is what this portion of the song refers to when it talks about testing the limits. We all ought to take a lesson from this. We should all test the limits of our ability to go pee. Most of us have just become mediocre at the task. Let's change that.

Also, this portion of the song directly addresses the taboos surrounding the subject. It is neither right not wrong to go pee. It's a natural body function. Let's stop pretending it's something else by saying, "no rules for me."

Let it go, let it go
I am one with the wind and sky
Let it go, let it go
You’ll never see me cry

As I previously mentioned, we all know the pain of having to hold it in for so long. Sometimes the relief is so great once we have done the deed that we can't help but cry. Obviously, you shouldn't let people see this because they might think you're crazy. You know how people see religious nuts? Well, they might start seeing you as a pee nut if you cry while peeing.

Here I stand
And here I'll stay
Let the storm rage on

Don't give in to the pressure to hold it in. Empty your bladder. Let the storm rage on.

My power flurries through the air into the ground
My soul is spiraling in frozen fractals all around
And one thought crystallizes like an icy blast
I’m never going back,
The past is in the past

Here we find one of the most artistic representations of the topic ever. The beauty of the substance freezing like an icy blast is simultaneously unprecedented and powerful. After such an experience, I doubt I would ever go back either.

Let it go, let it go
And I'll rise like the break of dawn
Let it go, let it go
That perfect girl is gone

Here we see the empowerment that results from rejecting cultural taboos surrounding peeing. Perfect girls don't pee in the snow, so the perfect girl must die for true urinary empowerment to be achieved. Don't try to be something you're not. Let it go.

Here I stand
In the light of day
Let the storm rage on,
The cold never bothered me anyway

Be bold about your empowerment. Be like this. Stand in the light of day and relieve yourself as is only natural. Don't let other people's expectations define you. Be free to pee.

As you can tell, this translational key makes the most sense of any proposed so far. The song is not about a girl embracing her magical powers, although it could be arguing that urinating is magical, and it is not about moral relativism, or gay rights, or anything else. This song is about finding the empowerment to transcend cultural expectations and pee as you see fit.

(Inspired by Emma McIlheran)

On this day in 1820...

On August 12, 1819, the whaleship Essex sailed from Nantucket, Massachusetts for the whaling grounds off the western coast of South America. This marked the beginning of a fateful and tragic voyage, though none on the ship could have known its eventual fate. This voyage was destined to be written into the annals of history, not to be forgotten.

Only two days after leaving port, the ship was nearly sunk by a squall, but it survived and continued its voyage. Upon rounding Cape Horn and arriving at the whaling grounds, the ship found that there were nearly no whales to be had. However, they learned of new grounds located much further out to sea than whaling ships traditionally ventured. Not only were the new grounds uncomfortably far out to sea, but the closest land was a group of islands which were said to be inhabited by cannibals.

Needing to restock their ship before sailing so far out, the men of the Essex decided to stop in the Galapagos islands where they captured hundreds of giant tortoises. On one of the islands upon which they landed, some of the crew decided it would be fun to light a fire, which got out of hand, surrounded the sailors, who then had to leap through the flames to escape, and blackened the island killing all life that had once called it home and possibly contributing to the extinction of two species of animal.

With this omen of good fortune, they made sail for the new whaling grounds. For days they fished with no luck, but on the morning of November 20, 1820, they spotted a whale pod. The whale boats were launched, and the chase was on. A little while later the crew noticed a remarkably large whale laying motionless, head aimed at the Essex, acting strangely a ways from the ship.

Then, without warning, the whale began to swim directly for the ship. It picked up speed and rammed its head against the ship's hull. This rocked the ship back and forth, but wasn't a mortal blow. He finally surfaced, dazed, on the starboard side of the ship, where the First Mate, Owen Chase, was prepared to harpoon him, but he then realized that the whale's tail was only inches from the ships rudder. Not wanting to be stranded thousands of miles out to sea with no way to steer the ship, the man decided not to harpoon the creature.

Moments later, the giant whale recovered and swam several hundred yards ahead of the ship before turning about to face it.

I turned around and saw him about one hundred rods [500 m or 550 yards] directly ahead of us, coming down with twice his ordinary speed of around 24 knots (44 km/h), and it appeared with tenfold fury and vengeance in his aspect. The surf flew in all directions about him with the continual violent thrashing of his tail. His head about half out of the water, and in that way he came upon us, and again struck the ship." —Owen Chase, First Mate.

This blow crushed the ship's hull, and sent the ship reeling backwards through the sea. The whale then dislodged its head from the hole which it had punched in the ship, and it disappeared, never to be seen again.

The men then found themselves stranded over a thousand of miles from the nearest land with nothing but a few small boats and some assorted supplies to last them. They were afraid of sailing to the relatively close islands which were rumored to be inhabited by cannibals, so they began the journey to South America, which was several thousand miles further away yet. In the end, seven of the survivors were eaten by their shipmates, and only eight men lived to tell the tale.

On this day in 1820, a ship was sunk by a giant sperm whale, altering the course of history thereafter and inspiring a revolutionary work, Herman Melville's Moby Dick, which challenged the contemporary ideas of what a novel should be, was philosophically ahead of its times, and is considered by some to be the Great American novel.