CHAPTER IV

THE ELEATICS

_God and nature--Knowledge and opinion--Being and evolution--Love the

creator--The modern egotism_

[79]

I. XENOPHANES.--Xenophanes was a native of Colophon, one of the Ionian

cities of Asia Minor, but having been forced at the age of twenty-five

to leave his native city owing to some political revolution, he

wandered to various cities of Greece, and ultimately to Zancle and

Catana, Ionian colonies in Sicily, and thence to Elea or Velia, a Greek

city on the coast of Italy. This city had, like Miletus, reached a

high pitch of commercial prosperity, and like it also became a centre

of philosophic teaching. For there Xenophanes remained and founded a

school, so that he and his successors received the name of Eleatics.

His date is uncertain; but he seems to have been contemporary with

Anaximander [80] and Pythagoras, and to have had some knowledge of the

doctrine of both. He wrote in various poetic measures, using against

the poets, and especially against Homer and Hesiod, their own weapons,

to [83] denounce their anthropomorphic theology. If oxen {32} or lions

had hands, he said, they would have fashioned gods after their likeness

which would have been as [85] authentic as Homer's. As against these

poets, and the popular mythology, he insisted that God must be one,

eternal, incorporeal, without beginning or ending. [87] As Aristotle

strikingly expresses it, "He looked forth over the whole heavens and

said that God is one, [88] that that which is one is God." The

favourite antitheses of his time, the definite and the indefinite,

movable and immovable, change-producing and by change produced--these

and such as these, he maintained, were inapplicable to the eternally

and [86] essentially existent. In this there was no partition of

organs or faculties, no variation or shadow of turning; the Eternal

Being was like a sphere, everywhere equal; everywhere self-identical.

[84]

His proof of this was a logical one; the absolutely self-existent could

not be thought in conjunction with attributes which either admitted any

external influencing Him, or any external influenced by Him. The

prevailing dualism he considered to be, as an ultimate theory of the

universe, unthinkable and therefore false. Outside the Self-existent

there could be no second self-existent, otherwise each would be

conditioned by the existence of the other, and the Self-existent would

be gone. Anything different from the Self-existent must be of the

non-existent, _i.e._ must be nothing.

{33}

One can easily see in these discussions some adumbration of many

theological or metaphysical difficulties of later times, as of the

origin of evil, of freewill in man, of the relation of the created

world to its Creator. If these problems cannot be said to be solved

yet, we need not be surprised that Xenophanes did not solve them. He

was content to emphasise that which seemed to him to be necessary and

true, that God was God, and not either a partner with, or a function

of, matter.

[89]

At the same time he recognised a world of phenomena, or, as he

expressed it, a world of guesswork or opinion ((Greek) _doxa_). As to

the origin of things within this sphere he was ready enough to borrow

[90] from the speculations of his predecessors. Earth and water are

the sources from which we spring; and he imagined a time when there was

neither sea nor land, but an all-pervading slough and slime; nay, many

such periods of inundation and emergence had been, hence the sea-shells

on the tops of mountains and the fossils in the rocks. Air and fire

also as agencies of change are sometimes referred to by him;

anticipations in fact are visible of the fourfold classification of the

elements which was formally made by some of his successors.

[91]

II. PARMENIDES.--The pupil and successor of Xenophanes was PARMENIDES,

a native of Elea. In a celebrated dialogue of Plato bearing the name

of {34} this philosopher he is described as visiting Socrates when the

latter was very young. "He was then already advanced in years, very

hoary, yet noble to look upon, in years some sixty and five." Socrates

was born about 479 B.C. The birth of Parmenides might therefore, if

this indication be authentic, be about 520. He was of a wealthy and

noble family, and able therefore to devote himself to a learned

leisure. Like his master he expounded his views in verse, and

fragments of his poem of considerable length and importance have been

preserved. The title of the work was _Peri Phueos_--_Of Nature_.

[93]

The exordium of the poem is one of some grandeur. The poet describes

himself as soaring aloft to the sanctuary of wisdom where it is set in

highest aether, the daughters of the Sun being his guides; under whose

leading having traversed the path of perpetual day and at length

attained the temple of the goddess, he from her lips received

instruction in the eternal verities, and had shown to him the deceptive

guesses of mortals. "'Tis for thee," she says, "to hear of both,--to

have disclosed to thee on the one hand the sure heart of convincing

verity, on the other hand the guesses of mortals wherein is no

ascertainment. Nevertheless thou shalt learn of these also, that

having gone through them all thou may'st see by what unsureness of path

must he go who goeth the way of opinion. From such a way of searching

{35} restrain thou thy thought, and let not the much-experimenting

habit force thee along the path wherein thou must use thine eye, yet

being sightless, and the ear with its clamorous buzzings, and the

chattering tongue. 'Tis by Reason that thou must in lengthened trial

judge what I shall say to thee."

[94]

Thus, like Xenophanes, Parmenides draws a deep division between the

world of reason and the world of sensation, between probative argument

and the guess-work of sense-impressions. The former is the world of

Being, the world of that which truly is, self-existent, uncreated,

unending, unmoved, unchanging, ever self-poised and self-sufficient,

like a sphere. [98] Knowledge is of this, and of this only, and as

such, knowledge is identical with its object; for outside this known

reality there is nothing. In other words, Knowledge can only be of

that which is, and that which is alone can know. All things which

mortals have imagined to be realities are but words; as of the birth

and death of things, of things which were and have ceased to be, of

here and there, of now and then.

It is obvious enough that in all this, and in much more to the same

effect reiterated throughout the poem, we have no more than a

statement, in various forms of negation, of the inconceivability by

human reason of that passage from _being_ as such, to that world of

phenomena which is now, but was not before, {36} and will cease to

be,--from _being_ to _becoming_, from eternity to time, from the

infinite to the finite (or, as Parmenides preferred to call it, from

the perfect to the imperfect, the definite to the indefinite). In all

this Parmenides was not contradicting such observed facts as

generation, or motion, or life, or death; he was talking of a world

which has nothing to do with observation; he was endeavouring to grasp

what was assumed or necessarily implied as a prior condition of

observation, or of a world to observe.

What he and his school seem to have felt was that there was a danger in

all this talk of water or air or other material symbol, or even of the

_indefinite_ or _characterless_ as the original of all,--the danger,

namely, that one should lose sight of the idea of law, of rationality,

of eternal self-centred force, and so be carried away by some vision of

a gradual process of evolution from mere emptiness to fulness of being.

Such a position would be not dissimilar to that of many would-be

metaphysicians among evolutionists, who, not content with the doctrine

of evolution as a theory in science, an ordered and organising view of

observed facts, will try to elevate it into a vision of what is, and

alone is, behind the observed facts. They fail to see that the more

blind, the more accidental, so to speak, the process of differentiation

may be; the more it is shown that the struggle for existence drives the

wheels of progress along the {37} lines of least resistance by the most

commonplace of mechanical necessities, in the same proportion must a

law be posited behind all this process, a reason in nature which

gathers up the beginning and the ending. The protoplasmic cell which

the imagination of evolutionists places at the beginning of time as the

starting-point of this mighty process is not merely this or that, has

not merely this or that quality or possibility, it _is_; and in the

power of that little word is enclosed a whole world of thought, which

is there at the first, remains there all through the evolutions of the

protoplasm, will be there when these are done, is in fact independent

of time and space, has nothing to do with such distinctions, expresses

rather their ultimate unreality. So far then as Parmenides and his

school kept a firm grip on this other-world aspect of nature as implied

even in the simple word _is_, or _be_, so far they did good service in

the process of the world's thought. On the other hand, he and they

were naturally enough disinclined, as we all are disinclined, to remain

in the merely or mainly negative or defensive. He would not lose his

grip of heaven and eternity, but he would fain know the secrets of

earth and time as well. And hence was fashioned the second part of his

poem, in which he expounds his theory of the world of opinion, or

guess-work, or observation.

[99]

In this world he found two originative principles {38} at work, one

pertaining to light and heat, the other to darkness and cold. From the

union of these two principles all observable things in creation come,

and over this union a God-given power presides, whose name is Love. Of

these two principles, the bright one being analogous to _Fire_, the

dark one to _Earth_, he considered the former to be the male or

formative element, the latter the female or passive element; the former

therefore had analogies to Being as such, the latter to Non-being. The

heavenly existences, the sun, the moon, the stars, are of pure Fire,

have therefore an eternal and unchangeable being; they are on the

extremest verge of the universe, and corresponding to them at the

centre is another fiery sphere, which, itself unmoved, is the cause of

all motion and generation in the mixed region between. The motive and

procreative power, sometimes called Love, is at other times called by

Parmenides Necessity, Bearer of the Keys, Justice, Ruler, etc.

But while in so far as there was union in the production of man or any

other creature, the [102] presiding genius might be symbolised as

_Love_; on the other hand, since this union was a union of opposites

(Light and Dark), _Discord_ or _Strife_ also had her say in the union.

Thus the nature and character in every creature was the resultant of

two antagonistic forces, and depended for its particular excellence or

defect on the proportions in which these two elements--the {39} light

and the dark, the fiery and the earthy--had been commingled.

No character in Greek antiquity, at least in the succession of

philosophic teachers, held a more honoured position than Parmenides.

He was looked on with almost superstitious reverence by his

fellow-countrymen. Plato speaks of him as his "Father Parmenides,"

whom he "revered and honoured more than all the other philosophers

together." To quote Professor Jowett in his introduction to Plato's

dialogue _Parmenides_, he was "the founder of idealism and also of

dialectic, or in modern phraseology, of metaphysics and of logic." Of

the logical aspect of his teaching we shall see a fuller

exemplification in his pupil and successor Zeno; of his metaphysics, by

way of summing up what has been already said, it may be remarked that

its substantial excellence consists in the perfect clearness and

precision with which Parmenides enunciated as fundamental in any theory

of the knowable universe the priority of Existence itself, not in time

merely or chiefly, but as a condition of having any problem to inquire

into. He practically admits that he does not see how to bridge over

the partition between Existence in itself and the changeful, temporary,

existing things which the senses give us notions of. But whatever the

connection may be, if there is a connection, he is convinced that

nothing would be more absurd than {40} to make the data of sense in any

way or degree the measure of the reality of existence, or the source

from which existence itself comes into being.

On this serenely impersonal position he took his stand; we find little

or nothing of the querulous personal note so characteristic of much

modern philosophy. We never find him asking, "What is to become of

_me_ in all this?" "What is _my_ position with regard to this

eternally-existing reality?"

Of course this is not exclusively a characteristic of Parmenides, but

of the time. The idea of personal relation to an eternal Rewarder was

only vaguely held in historical times in Greece. The conception of

personal immortality was a mere pious opinion, a doctrine whispered

here and there in secret mystery; it was not an influential force on

men's motives or actions. Thought was still occupied with the wider

universe, the heavens and their starry wonders, and the strange

phenomena of law in nature. In the succession of the seasons, the

rising and setting, the fixities and aberrations, of the heavenly

bodies, in the mysteries of coming into being and passing out of it, in

these and other similar marvels, and in the thoughts which they evoked,

a whole and ample world seemed open for inquiry. Men and their fate

were interesting enough to men, but as yet the egotism of man had not

attempted to isolate his destiny from the general problem of nature.

{41} To the _crux_ of philosophy as it appeared to Parmenides in the

relation of being as such to things which seem to be, modernism has

appended a sort of corollary, in the relation of being as such to _my_

being. Till the second question was raised its answer, of course,

could not be attempted. But all those who in modern times have said

with Tennyson--

Thou wilt not leave us in the dust:

Thou madest man, he knows not why;

He thinks he was not made to die;

And Thou hast made him: Thou art just,

may recognise in Parmenides a pioneer for them. Without knowing it, he

was fighting the battle of personality in man, as well as that of

reality in nature.

{42}

A Short History of Greek Philosophy · 第 4 / 22 章