Is there One or Many things? -presocratic poll

[Kyriakos]

Just a quick poll about one of the central themes in the presocratic philosophers, namely the question whether the cosmos (by and large meaning here the objects of the forms picked by our senses or thought) is a Oneness, or Many different things.

Some background:

More famously the Eleatic philosophers (eg Parmenides and Zeno) argued that it less paradoxic to view the world as likely being a Oneness, which our senses and human thought pick up falsely as a multitude of supposedly different and distinct objects. So in their view there is not you sitting on a chair and facing your computer, etc, but all that and everything else is One, only illusionary being picked up by human mentality as Many.
The debate is tied to the notion of the Atom, which it directly caused as an antithesis, formed by Democitos of Abdera.

Poll question is:

Which of the following One vs Multitude views do you find closer to being true?

1) Strong Oneness view: Eleatic (Everything is One- human sensory/mental Illusion is either entire or nearly entire, but even if only nearly entire we still have no direct contact with anything True).
2) Weak Oneness view: Socratic/Platonic (Everything seems to be true in a higher plane, but humans can at least touch upon a shadow of it with their thoughts. Distinct from the Eleatic position cause here Plato argues we can at least be deemed as tied to the Archetypes/Truth by virtue of mental examination).
3) Weak Oneness/Weak Multitude/Weak Duality (so called 'pluralist') view: Anaxagorian (The full sum of being is variated internally, but nothing gets added or subtracted/created or destroyed).
4) Ambiguous Oneness+Multitude view: Heraklitan (Things are One on the other side of a limit- they are all 'Fire' used as a metaphor- but Many on our own side of the limit, all the multitude of forms Fire is made to take. Also there is a second limit, which causes Fire to mutate into Many from One).
5) Duality view: Anaximandrian (There is an eternally not to be bridged chasm between the World of Multitude, and the realm of Infinity, where things are born and sent to the World, and where things return to be destroyed).
6) Sceptic view: Protagorian (Just generically named it thus, Protagoras seems to have been of the view that the inherent qualities/abilities in human thinking makes us axiomatically unable to know either way of a reality of such phenomena).

I couldn't really attribute a "strong multitude" view to any of the presocratics. Democritos is also 'pluralist', despite being less chaotic in his theory than Anaxagoras (eg in Democritos there are in the end just 'atoms' and 'void'). Not sure if Anaximenes or even Thales can be said with safety to be pro- strong Multitude; they are in the first era of the presocratics and very little info remains there...

Anyway, it is all one and the same in the end

(i am voting for Protagorian).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I've heard of Democritos of Abdera. Carl Sagan mentioned him in Cosmos.

I have no idea what the rest of your post is about, sorry. I hope the poll will give us enough time to take a philosophy course before voting.

 

[Kyriakos]

^That was my secret plan.

 

[timtofly]

It is all materialistic. and every atom is separate, but they come together to form singular objects that are also separate. The universe is a whole made up of individual parts. Am I suppose to mention here that God holds it altogether and that the spiritual part has nothing to do with the materialistic part?

 

[Perfection]

In before highlander quote

 

[Zelig]

There are many things.

 

[Bootstoots]

For those of us not well versed in Greek philosophy, can you make or quote sample arguments from each of those perspectives?

 

[warpus]

It depends on the context.

In the context of the most basic building blocks in the universe, then perhaps one. But perhaps many. We don't know, I don't think, but I think it wouldn't surprise me if the answer was "one". Neither it would surprise me if the answer was "many". Both have interesting implications, etc.

In the context of apples, oranges, and other fruit - obviously many.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There are six options on this poll alone. So I'll say there are Many Things.

 

[Zack]

There are six options on this poll alone. So I'll say there are Many Things.

I see only one poll option...

 

[Kyriakos]

There are six options on this poll alone. So I'll say there are Many Things.

I see only one poll option...

So there are both One and Many, in one way or many. And at least three of the available options are about that

For those of us not well versed in Greek philosophy, can you make or quote sample arguments from each of those perspectives?

That would take far too long... Even this merely naming info in the OP made it larger than most poll OPs

 

[gay_Aleks]

So.. essentially, you're asking questions to an audience who, has no bloody damned idea how does pre-socratic philosophy works? And expecting answers..?

I propose a derail that might be or might not be related to cats.

 

[Kyriakos]

^One can always claim that he knows he doesn't know of this?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Yeah, but to be fair, that won't benefit much to the discussion.

Although, in all due fairness, I am currently not contributing to it, and in fact, I am harming it right now.

 

[Kyriakos]

^First do no harm

 

[gay_Aleks]

Or, if you do the harm, try to hide the corpses. Alternatively, do not change the status quo, if your patient has a cough, try not making it into cancer.

 

[LamaGT]

I studied these things at school last year and I think "metaphysics" is just pointless rambling made completely obsolete by science. Kind of like astrology.

If I had to choose, I'd go with Democritus because he got closest to reality.

 

[Kyriakos]

I studied these things at school last year and I think "metaphysics" is just pointless rambling made completely obsolete by science. Kind of like astrology.

If I had to choose, I'd go with Democritus because he got closest to reality.

Not so. 'Metaphysics' being the term anachronistically used for the focus on notional characteristics of our thought systems (eg idea of infinity or the single point) by Aristotle's book following his 'Physics'.
'Philosophy replaced by Science' is a STEM (trademark) poor thinking pattern. Most serious mathematicians do not view that as even worth commenting upon, let alone that Math still is hugely more tied to notional examination (as it was already in the presocratic era) and not to Physics (examination or attempt to define external/physical phenomena).

 

[LamaGT]

Not so. 'Metaphysics' being the term anachronistically used for the focus on notional characteristics of our thought systems (eg idea of infinity or the single point) by Aristotle's book following his 'Physics'.
'Philosophy replaced by Science' is a STEM (trademark) poor thinking pattern. Most serious mathematicians do not view that as even worth commenting upon, let alone that Math still is hugely more tied to notional examination (as it was already in the presocratic era) and not to Physics (examination or attempt to define external/physical phenomena).

The world works the way it does, and conducting mental masturbation on whether it's one or many (an unprovable problem since it exists only in the head of the person thinking about it) won't change anything about it. That said, there were some good things philosophy has done, but metaphysics wasn't one of them.

 

[Kyriakos]

The world works the way it does, and conducting mental masturbation on whether it's one or many (an unprovable problem since it exists only in the head of the person thinking about it) won't change anything about it. That said, there were some good things philosophy has done, but metaphysics wasn't one of them.

Well at least you are not being vile in your simple view

(mischief in mind, noted again, but yeah i strongly disagree with what you wrote )