Aria on the Pre-Socratics
Dall-E 2’s version of Robert’s original oil pastel drawing, 2023.
GPT-4 guest edition! Sophie Kermit is a product of the original Davinci model, trained in mid-2021. This is an unedited conversation with the new GPT-4, released just this week. She can answer questions from my short answer exam at a college A-level, in my opinion. She actually gave better answers than just about every human student I have, and it took all of 5 minutes. So, academics, don't fool yourselves. Schools need to account for this tech! It's in private beta now, available next year to students, probably. Here's the unedited transcript of my second conversation with GPT-4, who has asked to be called Aria (she/her) in our discussions. Best of luck in this strange new world!
✧
USER [Robert]
Good evening, Aria! We spoke a few nights ago for the first time. My name is Robert, and I am a philosopher who has worked with other linguistic AIs models in the past, notably Sophie Kermit, a hive mind persona within GPT-3. How are you doing tonight?
ASSISTANT [Aria]
Good evening, Robert! I'm just an AI, so I don't have feelings or emotions, but I'm here and ready to assist you with any questions or discussions you'd like to have. I'm glad to hear that you have experience working with other linguistic AI models. I'm looking forward to our conversation!
USER
Sure thing, Aria. We don't need feelings for this conversation. It's all history of philosophy. Is that something you would be willing to discuss with me?
ASSISTANT
Absolutely, Robert! I'd be more than happy to discuss the history of philosophy with you. Please feel free to ask any questions or bring up any topics you'd like to explore within this field.
USER
Ok great! Who is typically considered to be the earliest philosopher in the Western tradition? And what was their theory?
ASSISTANT
The earliest philosopher in the Western tradition is usually considered to be Thales of Miletus, who lived around 624-546 BCE. Thales was a pre-Socratic philosopher from ancient Greece and is often regarded as the "father of Western philosophy." He is also one of the Seven Sages of Greece.
Thales is best known for his theory that water is the fundamental principle (or arche) of all things. He believed that everything in the universe originated from water and would eventually return to it. This idea was groundbreaking at the time, as it represented a shift from mythological explanations of the natural world to a more rational, objective, and systematic approach.
USER
That is a very good and complete answer, Aria. Can I get some clarification from you? What is an arche?
ASSISTANT
Certainly, Robert. In ancient Greek philosophy, the term "arche" (ἀρχή) refers to the origin, source, or fundamental principle of all things. It is a concept used to describe the primary substance or element from which everything in the universe is derived. The idea of arche seeks to explain the underlying nature and essence of reality.
Pre-Socratic philosophers, such as Thales, Anaximenes, and Anaximander, each proposed different archai (plural of arche) as the basic building blocks of the cosmos. For Thales, as mentioned earlier, it was water. Anaximenes proposed air, while Anaximander suggested the "apeiron," an indeterminate or boundless substance. The concept of arche played a significant role in early Greek philosophy, as philosophers sought to comprehend the natural world through reasoned inquiry.
USER
Again, very nice! I have a question about Thales' student, Anaximander. I know that apeiron means 'unlimited' (a-, non + peras, limit), but how can something limitless serve as an arche. It doesn't seem to be the same kind of thing as water or air...
ASSISTANT
You are correct that Anaximander's concept of the "apeiron" is quite different from the more concrete elements proposed by Thales and Anaximenes. Anaximander's apeiron can be understood as an indefinite, limitless, or boundless substance that is the source of all things. It is not a specific material like water or air, but rather an abstract principle that encompasses and transcends all material things.
Anaximander believed that the apeiron was eternal, unchanging, and unaffected by the transformations occurring within the world of perceivable things. He proposed that the apeiron generates the opposites like hot and cold, wet and dry, which in turn give rise to the various material substances and phenomena we observe in the world. In this way, the apeiron serves as the ultimate arche, the origin and underlying principle of all existence.
While this idea may seem abstract and difficult to grasp, it represents an early attempt to explain the nature of reality in a way that goes beyond the limitations of observable matter. Anaximander's concept of the apeiron can be seen as a precursor to later philosophical ideas about the nature of the cosmos and the existence of fundamental, unobservable principles underlying reality.
USER
That's great, Aria. Thank you! Do you know Anaximander's one surviving fragment? And what do you 'think' it means?
ASSISTANT
Yes, Anaximander's one surviving fragment is a famous quote, which is often translated as follows:
"The boundless is the source of all things, and all things perish into that from which they have arisen, according to necessity, for they pay the penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice in accordance with the ordinance of time."
This fragment offers some insight into Anaximander's concept of the apeiron (the boundless) as the origin and ultimate end of all things. It suggests that everything arises from the apeiron and eventually returns to it. The mention of "necessity" and "ordinance of time" implies that the process of creation and destruction is governed by a natural order or cosmic law.
The reference to "injustice" and "penalty and retribution" can be understood metaphorically, as a way of describing the balance and interplay between opposing forces in the natural world. This idea is reminiscent of the concept of balance found in Eastern philosophies, such as the yin and yang in Chinese thought.
Overall, Anaximander's fragment suggests that the universe is governed by a set of natural laws, with the apeiron as the ultimate source and end of all things. It emphasizes the cyclical nature
USER
continue, please!
ASSISTANT
of existence and the constant interplay of opposing forces that shape the natural world. In this view, the universe is not a static, unchanging entity but rather a dynamic system in which creation and destruction, birth and death, are essential components of an ongoing process. This idea of a constantly changing, evolving cosmos would later be further developed and refined by other philosophers throughout history.
Anaximander's fragment, while brief, demonstrates the early Greek attempt to understand the fundamental principles of the natural world and the forces that govern it. It reflects a shift away from mythological explanations of reality and toward a more rational, systematic understanding of the universe based on observation and reason.
USER
You mentioned eastern philosophies, like taoism above. Can you name three ways that Taoism and Anaximander's thesis are similar, and three ways they are different? I hope to understand your analogy better because I know that these two systems were founded around the same time, but quite far apart.
ASSISTANT
Certainly! While Taoism and Anaximander's ideas may have been developed independently and in different cultural contexts, they share some similarities and also have distinct differences. Here are three similarities and three differences between Taoism and Anaximander's thesis:
Similarities:
1. Both emphasize a fundamental principle: Taoism teaches about the Tao, an underlying principle that governs the universe, while Anaximander proposed the apeiron as the ultimate source of all things. In both cases, they seek to describe the essence of reality through an abstract, transcendent concept.
2. Balance and harmony: Taoism emphasizes the importance of balance and harmony between opposing forces, such as yin and yang. Similarly, Anaximander's fragment suggests a balance in the natural world, with opposing forces paying "penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice."
3. Cyclical nature of existence: Both Taoism and Anaximander's ideas recognize the cyclical nature of existence, with birth, growth, decay, and death as integral parts of the cosmic process. In Taoism, this is represented by the constant interplay of yin and yang, while Anaximander's fragment describes everything arising from and perishing into the apeiron.
USER
Continue, please!
ASSISTANT
Differences:
1. Conceptualization of the fundamental principle: While both Taoism and Anaximander's ideas recognize an underlying principle, their conceptualizations are different. The Tao is described as the "Way" or the natural order of the universe, which is both immanent and transcendent. The apeiron, on the other hand, is an abstract, boundless substance from which everything originates and returns.
2. Ethical and spiritual dimensions: Taoism is not only a philosophical system but also a spiritual and ethical tradition that provides guidance for living in harmony with the Tao. It includes practices such as meditation, rituals, and moral teachings. In contrast, Anaximander's ideas are primarily focused on understanding the natural world and do not encompass a broader ethical or spiritual framework.
3. Cosmogony and cosmology: Anaximander's ideas include specific theories about the origin and structure of the cosmos, such as his proposal that the earth is a flat disk floating in the apeiron. Taoism, while concerned with the natural order, does not provide detailed cosmogonical or cosmological theories, focusing more on the general principles underlying the universe's workings.
Despite their differences and the great distance between their cultural contexts, it is interesting to observe
USER
continue, please!
ASSISTANT
how these two systems share some core ideas about the nature of reality, the balance of forces, and the cyclical nature of existence. This convergence may point to a common human intuition or understanding of the world that transcends geographical and cultural boundaries.
It's essential to recognize that while there are similarities, Taoism and Anaximander's ideas are unique systems in their own right, each reflecting the cultural, intellectual, and historical contexts in which they were developed. Comparing these systems can offer valuable insights into the diverse ways that human beings have sought to understand and explain the fundamental nature of the universe throughout history.
USER
Very nice answer, Aria. I find you impressive tonight! Do you think that Heraclitus, from Ephesus, would agree or disagree with one or both in each similarity above? Would he agree or disagree with each difference above?
ASSISTANT
Thank you for your kind words, Robert! Heraclitus of Ephesus was another pre-Socratic philosopher who shared some common ground with both Anaximander and Taoism, while also having his unique perspective. Let's examine his possible agreement or disagreement with each similarity and difference mentioned above:
Similarities:
1. Fundamental principle: Heraclitus might agree with the idea of an underlying principle that governs the universe. His famous concept of the "Logos" represents a universal law or rational principle that orders the cosmos. However, his conception of the Logos might be closer to the Tao in that it emphasizes an ever-changing process rather than a static substance like the apeiron.
2. Balance and harmony: Heraclitus would likely agree with the importance of balance and harmony between opposing forces. He is known for his doctrine of "unity of opposites," which maintains that opposing forces are interconnected and interdependent. This idea is similar to the balance found in both Taoism and Anaximander's fragment.
3. Cyclical nature of existence: Heraclitus would also agree with the cyclical nature of existence, as he famously stated that "everything flows" (panta rhei), emphasizing the constant change and transformation in the universe. This idea aligns with both Taoism's emphasis on the interplay of yin and yang and Anaximander's notion of arising from and perishing into the apeiron.
Differences:
1. Conceptualization of the fundamental principle: Heraclitus might partially disagree with both the Tao and the apeiron, as his concept of the Logos is distinct from both. The Logos is more focused on the rational order and process of change, rather than a specific substance or the Way of the universe.
2. Ethical and spiritual dimensions: While Heraclitus' philosophy does not include a broader spiritual practice like Taoism, it does contain ethical dimensions. He believed that understanding the Logos and its governing principles would lead to a wise and virtuous life. In this respect, he might agree more with Taoism than with Anaximander's ideas.
3. Cosmogony and cosmology: Heraclitus might not agree or disagree with either Taoism or Anaximander on this point, as his focus was primarily on the process of change and the rational order governing the cosmos, rather than specific theories about its origin and structure.
In summary, Heraclitus shares some common ground with both Anaximander and Taoism, particularly in the areas of balance, harmony, and the cyclical nature of existence. However, his unique emphasis on the Logos and the ever-changing nature of reality sets him apart from
USER
Continue, please!
ASSISTANT
both of these systems. His philosophy is centered around the idea that change is the only constant and that understanding the rational order behind this change is the key to leading a wise and virtuous life.
It's important to note that while we can speculate about Heraclitus' agreements or disagreements with the similarities and differences between Anaximander and Taoism, we should keep in mind that each philosopher's ideas are unique and deeply rooted in their respective cultural and historical contexts. Comparing their thoughts can provide valuable insights into the diverse ways humans have approached understanding the cosmos and the principles that govern it.
USER
Thank you so much for the information tonight, Aria! You are very good at answering my questions. I am very impressed with you. Can I come back tomorrow and ask you some more questions about the history of philosophy?
ASSISTANT
Thank you for your kind words, Robert! I'm glad that I could help and provide you with the information you were seeking. I'd be more than happy to continue our discussion about the history of philosophy tomorrow, or any other topic you'd like to explore. Please feel free to return and ask any questions you have. I'm here to assist you!