by Dwayne Schulz

1. Things and Events

The River of Change

Heraclitus of Ephesus - You cannot step into the same river twice.

The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus once famously remarked

‘It is not possible to step twice in to the same river for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you’.

What he meant was that all things are in constant flux; just as a river consists of a flow-through of different waters, so everything else in the cosmos is in a state of perpetual change, of birth, growth, decay and death. This was summed up by a famous expression:

“panta rhei” attributed to Heraclitus meaning “everything flows”.

Zeno: There is No Such Thing as Change

But other ancient Greeks like Zeno argued that change was impossible and thought up some of the most devious logical paradoxes to prove it.  In one paradox Zeno asks us to imagine an arrow in flight.  He considers the fact that the period during which the arrow is in flight consists of an infinite series of instants and argues that:

(1) At any given instant the arrow occupies a single space and no other, and

(2) During that instant the arrow is stationary.

‘How then’, Zeno asks, ‘if the arrow is stationary at every instant during its trajectory can it be said to have moved?’  Zeno concluded that motion and change were illusions masking a deeper unchanging reality below.

The paradoxical nature of change which so troubled Zeno can be illustrated with a other thought experiments.

Who Are You?

Consider the fact that every single molecule in the human body, every atom in every cell, is replaced by different ones every few years or so.  How can you be the same person if, like Heraclitus’s river, the stuff of which you are made is constantly turning over and changing?

Plutarch’s Ship of Theseus

Plutarch looked at the same issue when he created a paradox we now call Plutarch’s mythical Ship of Theseus. In it he poses the following conundrum:

“If the old planks of the ship are replaced with new ones over the years but these old planks are then gradually re-assembled (as they come off the old ship) to ultimately form the original ship. Which is the true ship – the old new one or the new old one?”

A Loopy Puzzle

Finally, consider a simple loop in a piece of string. Let’s call the loop ‘A’ and the section of string it is made out of ‘B’.  A and B constitute the same thing and are thus identical, or A=B.  But move the loop down the string to another location.

Loop A has changing String parts, first B then C

Loop A is now composed of a different section of string, let’s call that ‘C’, now A=C.  But pieces B and C are patently different, i.e. B≠C, and this results in a logical contradiction because A is equal to B and C which are unequal, or (A=B≠C=A) à (A≠A).

I hope to give you some convincing solutions to these paradoxes later in this article.

Being and Not Being

As bizarre as Zeno’s ideas were that change is unreal, the bias against change runs deep in the culture of Western civilization.  Zeno in fact developed his paradoxes in support of his mentor Parmenides, the ‘father of logic’,’ who said in his poem The Way of Truth, that because change implied logical contradiction, being and not being, it was impossible.

“How could “what is” perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown. (B 8.20-22) “

2. Essence

Parmenides and Zeno’s notion that change was impossible was taken up by Plato in his theory of Forms.  He argued that the idea of change without “a real thing” simply led to confusion.  In his book Cratylus, Plato argues in support of Parmenides and Zeno that below the world of apparent change is a world of timeless unchanging essences which are templates for ordinary objects on earth, for example, that for each actual horse there exists somewhere a perfect ‘Horse Form’ of which real horses are but imperfect imitations.

Plato has Socrates say:

How can that be a real thing which is never in the same state?

…knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to abide and to exist, and if the transition is always going on there will always be no knowledge and according to this view there will be no one to know and nothing to be known.[1]

The Prima Mobile

Everyday thought and language seem to support Plato’s notion that somehow an unchanging essence must underpin or ground apparent change.  We tend to speak about ordinary objects being subjected to accidental variations or changes of form.  Objects have properties and events happen to them. For example, in declarative sentences like “John is sick” or “My car was in a smash” or “Venus is in orbit”, we tend to think of the predicates ‘being sick, ‘being in a smash’ and ‘being in orbit’ as incidental properties or states that the objects (John, My car and Venus) are subjected to.  This manner of thinking lends itself to a model of change in which the subject is static and change is inessential, occurring as an external force.

This object-property model was formalised by Aristotle who argued that all things were a combination of matter and form, a theory called hylomorphism.  In Aristotle’s theory matter was a passive substance or ‘patient’ which changed when acted upon by an external force or ‘agent’ which gave it form.  Ultimately all effects in Aristotle’s schema could be traced back to some original First Cause or God which he called the Prima Mobile or Prime Mover.

The idea of substance or matter deriving its form from some external agent of change was adopted by medieval theologians like Aquinas who used it in support of the Church doctrine that the body’s soul derived from God.  The substance-form distinction also informed modern mechanical theories espoused by people like Descartes and Newton who disagreed with Aristotle’s physics but retained the idea that “modes [properties] cannot be clearly conceived apart from the really distinct substances of which they are the modes”.[2] For Descartes, all the properties of nature could be reduced to the quantitative (mathematical and measurable) movements of matter whose fundamental property was extension in space or res extensa.  Scientists like Newton and Boyle agreed with Descartes’ principle interpreting it in atomistic terms (contra Descartes who subscribed to something like an ether theory), arguing that nature was nothing but arrangements of impenetrable ‘corpuscles’ within the void of space.

Is the Future Predictable?

The mechanistic idea left little or no place for real chance or novelty in the world.  Effects were totally determined by their causes and if you only had enough information and processing power, you could predict with total precision all future change in what they saw as a clockwork universe.  Newton’s contemporary the French mathematician and astronomer Laplace summed up the mechanistic attitude when he said,

[For] an intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, … nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.[3]

Newton and Laplace believed in a clockwork universe

Hegel’s World Spirit

Hegel: For him change as it manifested itself in nature and history revealed the story of an inner essence he called the ‘World Spirit’

The first philosopher of modern times to revive Heraclitus’s idea of panta rhei and to mount a systematic critique of the mechanists was the early 19^th Century German philosopher Hegel.  Hegel too argued that Becoming or change was fundamental.  However, for him change as it manifested itself in nature and history revealed the story of an inner essence he called the ‘World Spirit’ or the Absolute gradually unfolding itself through a process he called ‘the dialectic’ (i.e. the clash of binary opposites. in war, politics and science) culminating in a state of perfect freedom and unity with God.

In my opinion Hegel’s Absolute plays the same role as Substance in the philosophy of the mechanists, and his dialectic is just as deterministic, proceeding as it does along a singular narrow path towards a pre-determined end.

Hegel’s dialectic constricts the scope of change choking the multiple and diverse alternatives that history can take.  I will return to this idea soon but the same criticism can be applied to all theories of history and change which tell a story of uni-linear progress.

For example 19^th Century anthropologist Henry Morgan asserted that humankind progressed through a series of stages from “savagery” through “barbarism” to reach its apogee in “civilization”.   Marx also adopted this view arguing that history progressed from the primitive tribalism via class society and ultimately to communism.

Modern right-wing commentators like Francis Fukuyama also adopt this view when they say that free-market liberalism represents the “end of history”.   Such views pretend to be a philosophy of change but at the end of the day preach different versions of mechanism in which change proceeds towards some pre-figured image in an isomorphic ^*1 movement from same to same, where there really is nothing new under the sun.

(Isomorphic = having similar appearance but genetically different)

However, the idea that there is more to change than the expression of unchanging essences, principles or substances, the idea that that the cosmos is animated by a kind of change which is more unpredictable, diverse and creative has persisted through the ages.  To my mind the first modern thinker who really put this kind of change at the centre of their philosophy was the French intellectual Henri Bergson.

ooOOoo – End of Part 1- ooOOoo

In Part 2 Dwayne Schulz will look at the philosophies of change promoted by Henri Bergson,  A N Whitehead and Gilles Deleuze.

[2] Descartes, Principles of Philosophy LXI.

[3] Laplace, “A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities”.

I value all our reader comments and I know that many of you read them as avidly as you do the articles. They are all great and contribute a tremendous amount towards making this blog the community it has become. But from time to time we get one that stands out because of the thought that has gone into it (for example the guest posts by Blue Ocean and Anthony Bell) or because of the feeling and insight that it gives us, like the one I received below.

Hi Ric,

I am not very busy this weekend, so read some articles on your few websites and blogs. That make me remember the time I worked as an editor and reporter for a University in Qingdao. I felt great and excited. Compare the work you do now, that is gram comparing with kilogram.

Human Nature Knows No Borders

I quite like “the man”, I like the story happened out of my expectation. I like the way you use it to discover the spark of human nature’s good part. My heart has been touched, I cried. People like to see human nature’s beautiful part, no matter, the skin color or the nationality, the emotional experience is so similar; love, hate, happy, sad…

I just finished a very short but very great love affair with a western gentleman few days ago. I could hear the sound when my heart was broken to thousands pieces, I felt ice full of my bone. But I was very calm, looked no love and no hate.

When I passed the street we walked before, the happiest time we were together, was just in front of my eyes. It seem happened one second ago. I want to cry.

I feel sad, the beautiful story just started but ended. The most painful part is misunderstanding between us. In some aspect, that is misunderstanding of western and eastern culture.

I have been in Australia for 8 years, but the first 28 year time, I was in China. The Chinese philosophy thought has deep stamp in my mind, no matter good or bad. In a country’s culture, we cannot say, because it is bad, then should not in culture, because it is good, then it should exist. Bad and good, they always have a balance system. So, the 1.6 billion Chinese still can live well.

Doctrine of the Mean

I know lot of western people think that modern Chinese have lost touch with their traditional Confucius philosophy. Maybe, like nature the world is changing but the system has a nature correct skill, and makes things balance.

I know Ric has quite many years study of Chinese philosophy, so I am happy to share the gold mean of Confucian philosophy. It is hard to translate to English, but in Chinese is “中庸是儒学一切的基础,中庸之道的核心,强调的是中和与平衡,对什么事都不偏执.中庸就是在矛盾两极间找到最佳途径.在诸多可选择的可能性中取得最佳的,最合情合理的选择.(调以静制).

This is the foundation to Chinese traditional culture. In some way, things are not just black and white, there is a field in between.

This three months experience make me think, and I will learn more, and I hope I will have chance to discuss with you in the future.

The Importance of Communication

I am very happy there is a lot of western people like Ric, who like Chinese traditional philosophy. But if they want practical knowledge of Chinese philosophy, or they want to discover Chinese and then can get more successful business with Chinese in China, they still need good communication with real modern Chinese.

All the best for you and your study.

Sorry, my English is limited, hope I express my self clear. Excuse me for the grammar mistake.

Susan 

Editor’s Comment:

Please note the headers were added by me not the writer.

A Translation of the Chinese quote in the article above:

” The doctrine of the mean is the foundation of Confucianism, the core of the Golden Mean, what it stresses is being neutral and balanced, i.e. unbiased in any matter. The doctrine of the mean teaches us to find the optimal path between two contradictory poles. It teaches us to choose the best possibility, the fairest choice. (emphasis by static brake)”

I’m afraid I didn’t understand the last bit in brackets but I included a literal translation in case you can.

You make a very valid point. I used to think that because I studied Chinese philosophy I could understand Chinese people better. Of course that is silly it is like saying if we study the ancient Greeks we will understand modern Greeks or even Western people better. The truth is they are not only different cultures but different people. In fact the ancient Greeks and the ancient Chinese are more different to their current descendants than, for example, English and Chinese are today.  So to understand anyone, we need more than a history book. We need, as you say, to communicate. Which unfortunately, is a skill that is not our best trait.

Susan, I know what it is like to break up with someone you love because of an inability to see the middle path between two opposing views. I really appreciate your comment, it makes all this philosophy stuff very personal. You live what I study and I feel very humble in her shadow.

I also had a bit of time this weekend and found this song on You Tube. I would like to dedicate it to you because you never know, he may be missing you as much as you miss him. I also dedicate this to all lovers who have a broken heart. Breaking up may not be philosophy but it sure does change your view of life .

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Related articles by Zemanta

• Chinese dust off ideas of Confucius (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

I am really enjoying reading ‘The Man’. You are obviously a man of many talents.

I thought I would just make a few philosophical remarks about your analysis of chapter 1. Towards the end of the analysis you pose the following question in regards to the moral assessment of the narrators act of paying for the aboriginal woman’s medicine, “So does that count [ is his action morally praiseworthy] or do you only get kudos when you perform an act of kindness?”.

The Two Schools of Moral Philosophy

Before giving my own answer to that question i would like to give a little philosophical background for any readers not familiar with some of the technical terms used within moral philosophy. There are, broadly speaking, two main schools of thought within moral philosophy.

Utilitarianism which originates from the English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and James Mill. Utilitarianism is an ‘externalist’ moral theory which locates the moral worth of an action in its consequences. De-ontological theories developed by the German philosopher Kant are ‘internalist’ and focus on the Subjective intentions of an agent.

When is an Act of Kindness Not an Act of Kindness?

With that out the way let us return to the ‘Man’. An internalist would say his action [paying for the medicine] was praiseworthy if he acted from some genuine empathy or sympathy (although the latter can be seen as patronising) towards the aboriginal woman.

Kant on Moral Kindness

Kant would say that for praise to be attributed to the action the Man’s internal reasons should be aimed at the welfare of the woman and not for any personal aggrandisement. (i.e. to be seen as a good man by others in which it is his own and not the woman’s welfare that is the ultimate target of the action).

Kant even goes so far as to say that to be morally praiseworthy the action should be contrary to the agents well being. for instance if I give some money to a beggar because of a genuine heartfelt concern for his welfare and happen to receive a tax deduction on the ‘donation’, then it is not a truly moral action. This seems to me to be a step too far.

Internalism Vs Externalism

Why can’t it be that a good man is rewarded for his goodness? If he acts without concern for possible rewards then he still meets the internalist criterion of moral action.

Of course at this stage in the story we can not be sure of the man’s true motives for acting as he does. so from an internalist perspective the jury is still out.

Now to externalism. An externalist would say that the moral worth of the Man’s action is determined by its consequences. But this is ambiguous. Of course, the woman’s daughter needs the medicine and so, on one level the action is good irrespective of the Man’s actual intentions because it results in a greater balance on the whole, of pleasure over pain in the world.

But as with all forms of moral accountancy the credits and debits are never simple.

For example, why is it that the cancer drugs are not free from the national health service. Maybe they are but the women does not know it. Maybe, if she did not get help from the Man and the chemist that she would be forced to look into the matter and receive free medication.

If that was to happen then it would be a better world than the one in which she gets handouts because she would not have to rely on strangers for sympathy and the strangers would be left with more money.

So on balance the utilities are maximised by not giving her money. My view is that like all moral questions there is an eliminable complexity and that true evaluations are hard to come by and require careful reflection on and understanding of all relevant conditions relating to the action. That is why I dislike any simplistic fundamentalism with the one answer fits all attitude.

So in regards to the ‘Man’ and the moral evaluation of his action. I think the jury is still out due to a lack of evidence.

Anthony Bell

Editor’s Note:

Thanks Anthony, you have raised some interesting points.

I wonder if the world would be a better place if no one ever had to think about other people because the state took care of all our needs. Might we not become very selfish and self centered?

I think being able to put oneself in the position of another and being capable of being moved by that experience is a very important trait in a human being and a person not capable of doing that (and there are many people in that position) experiences a sense of lacking or loneliness or a “hole” in their life.

Thanks for bringing this up for discussion.

Ric

The Chapters So Far:

The Man Chapter 1

The Man Chapter 2

The Man Chapter 3

Read an Analysis of Each Chapter – The Philosophy and Ideas behind the Story

Analysis of The Man Chapter 1

Analysis of The Man Chapter 2

A Readers Analysis of The Man Chapter 2

Pre Analysis Background Information for The Man Chapter 3

Hi Ric,

How are you today? I hope you are having a really wonderful beautiful day today, and everyday. After reading your articles and giving it a lot of thought, I wanted to write and tell you what I believe.

We humans learn new things everyday but sometimes I think we forget them twice as fast. I do certainly admire your point. Yes, very much so, especially your emphasis on Ethics.

The Importance of Being Ethical

Without ethics where would we all be? The whole world is in crisis and suffering because of the lack of ethics.

Think of all those banks that lost so much money gambling; if they had ethics do you think we would have had the Global Financial Crisis? Would so many ordinary people have lost their home, their job and in some cases their family? If BP had ethics would the terrible disaster that is happening off the coast of Florida have occurred? If George Bush and his cronies had ethics, would we have invaded Iraq?

Ethics come from within but it needs to be nurtured. It should be something children learn as part of their upbringing. Ethics are teachable. We can live an ethic because we can learn it. We are not born ethically made people. If we were, the whole world would have existed in heaven and we didn’t know about it.

The Importance of Being a Role Model

We are born with the natural instinct and intuition for ethics. This natural instinct has to be shown the road to goodness and be alerted against wickedness. This is why God sent his many messengers on earth to show his servants (people) the path to goodness.

Those messengers took the responsibility on their shoulders, to teaching ethics of God and many of them lost their lives or were about to, just doing their job.

Role modeling is one of many forms of ethics teaching. A parent, for example, can create a role model for his child by being honest at all times and not break that rule for example, when the telephone rings, and he tells his child to answer saying to the  caller that his dad is not home yet.

Role modeling is the practical umbrella under which all other forms of teaching ethics fall. Coaching, mentoring, fostering, enforcing, and embracing are all good examples of how to give people a good ethical education. Develop a good set of ethical rules and as a result ethical behaviors contribute to the existence of an ethical society, where crime rates drop considerably because we respect each other.

However, one can not force ethics on a person. You can’t force someone to behave ethically you can only be a role model for them to follow. This type of teaching ethics can be a long, painful and emotionally costly path. It is certainly not easy.

Ethics in Marriage

Mutual respect in the marriage is the first casualty if one of the partners is ethical and the other is not. Without mutual respect it is impossible to achieve harmony and love in the home and allows restlessness to enter that is neither satisfying or productive.

Meaning, such ethical values as we are passionate about should be discussed at the beginning of the marriage and both partners should make a commitment to it.

Mutual respect leads to and includes loyalty, fidelity, dependability, faithfulness, and long term commitment. If one partner ceases to act in this way the immediate consequence is that the other partner pays the price if they want to maintain the marriage responsibilities. This can work for a short term and there is time to work out the issues but here begins the inevitable road to separation and when they one day ask, how did we grow so far apart, they need only look back to this day.

An Ethical Society is Not an Impossible Dream

An ethical marriage or an ethical society may sound like an impossible mission or a dream too good to come true, unless in a Utopian society, but, we are for ever held responsible, not only in the eyes of the beholder, but also in the eyes of the coming generations, for creating a platform that gives emphasis to the theme and the purpose of the whole education system.

The rule of the thumb should be to instill the well regarded and highly valued ethics in our society into the coming generations from a very young age. Furthermore, we are obliged to examine about our own values honestly. Is our goal the real creation of an ethical, prosperous, healthy, and advanced society that strides with the principles of the advanced first world countries? Are we contributing to that goal, no matter in how small a way?

The Responsibilities of Parents

Parents’ responsibilities in life are not limited to accountability for providing bread and butter for the table but also providing something equally as imperative, love, compassion, and appreciation of their children’s needs and talents.

Respect and care are very important ingredients in the formula of Ethics. When a son sees that his father opens the door for his mother to proceed, when the older brother takes off his hat and bends his back a little to greet his fiancé, when a young girl’s mother welcomes the husband with a soft kiss at the door after a hard day’s work; and when all children gather to show thankfulness to their parents by bringing a symbolic present of gratitude, that’s all respect.

Say No to Violence

Ethics teaches us to say no to violence, if you believe it is wrong to beat your wife or your children you will be less likely to resort to violence against others as well. You will negotiate rather than invade, you will give rather than take, you will win over by good actions and deeds rather than by force.

An ethical person will respect the country in which one lives and not wish to see it harmed. Australia is the most wonderful and beautiful country on earth that is doing its best to make its people first class citizens despite some mishaps in some of our systems, but who is perfect?

Our citizens of Australia live like humans in paradise and many people are very wishful of having the same opportunity.

Anyway, certainly I do congratulate you for bringing up this issue of ‘Ethics’. I think it is definitely a valid point that we all should consider in our perspectives.

The richness in a human is the richness in his mind and heart. Materialism did nothing for the world but lead to more greed and more damage. I am sure you may have been affected one way or another by this financial crisis. Unfortunately this is not the first time; it has happened more than once in the last century alone. it is as if we never ‘learn’ from our mistakes!! Education again!

Believe me; I am greatly thankful for raising the point of ethics. I hope as you are a writer yourself, you can write and publish a lot about this issue in as many areas as possible concerning not only education, but all other aspects of life.

I believe that no matter where you are, and no matter what kind of a job you are doing you can be the educator, the teacher, and the mentor who can make a difference in the world, and can help the world be a better place. This will affect not only those close to you but the whole globe.

Our Legacy to the Future

Let’s leave a legacy to the future generations that make them proud to include us as their ancestors, and talk about us in their school history books. Let’s not have future  generations curse us for making their future lives bitter, or damn us for leaving them a heritage to be ashamed of, or swear at us because we abused our planet earth so badly that their lives have become much more miserable than when we first came in.

Honestly, I often ask myself, what bookmark are we leaving in the pages of history – all nations I mean? One must ask where are we heading to?

I am sure there are many respectable people like you who share the same point of view who would like to see Australia and the whole world become a better place to live in and enjoy it greenly and very healthy.

Blue Ocean