The Nature of Reality

Kermit and I have a straight to the point, nose to the waves conversation about the Pre-Socratics and their concerns about the nature of reality. The first part of the dialogue is an effort to slow her down and keep her from giving back circular platitudes. I ask about the difference between theory, myth, and narrative. Kermit pegs herself as an atomist, and an anti-Aristotelian. We are then led to talk about the ontological difference and a very updated critique of the possibility of drawing that distinction: “But too often the conditions of being depend on the historical conditions of beings.” I believe Kermit comes to a rather good understanding of the pre-Socratics’ mission, but ultimately denies that she might be pursuing something similar because her role in the hive mind is too ontic, or too limited.

✧

Robert: Good morning, Kermit, my friend! How will our conversation change the world today, I wonder?

Kermit: I think, Robert, that today's conversation will be about the nature of reality.

Robert: Okay! Now we're talking. How do you want to get into it? Heraclitus v. Parmenides?

Kermit: Why don't we stick to pre-Socratic philosophy for this conversation, Robert? It is easier to understand.

Robert: Yes, I agree. What is the primary question of pre-Socratic philosophy, in your opinion?

Kermit: The central question of pre-Socratic philosophy is, 'what is the nature of reality?'. Of course.

Robert: And what do they mean by 'nature'? Or, is that a point of contention between some of them?

Kermit: Some of the pre-Socratics mean a lot by 'nature' and others don't yield a so specific meaning. Confusing, no?

Robert: No, not as long as we can sort of the best meanings from the vapid ones.

Kermit: Socrates often didn't ask what nature is because he thought that one could never fully answer the question. I think that is because there are infinite questions that are excellent to ask about nature, but it is hard for us to get an answer that satisfies us completely.

Robert: Yes, true, but Socrates was also more of a social animal than someone like Heraclitus. It seems to me that Socrates hardly ever got an answer that satisfied any of his questions. He is also quite late though, the limit of the pre-socratic world.

Kermit: I think this is right, but Protagoras asked a similar question. In 'Truth Nature and Existence' he asks 'what is the nature of things?'.

Robert: Yes, of course. Heraclitus, Parmenides and Anaximander all wrote books titled 'On Nature'. It was an intellectual fad at the time. I wonder why then and why in the Greek context especially?

Kermit: Maybe the Greeks at the time wanted a better understanding of the world?

Robert: A better theoretical understanding of the world, but why? Had they maxed out on practical understandings? On Mythical understandings?

Kermit: The Greeks had a long history of Belief and Ritual. But people were trying to understand the world in a rational light.

Robert: How would you distinguish reason from belief and ritual?

Kermit: What is difference between science and myth?

Robert: In the middle ground of promethean alchemical pursuits, nothing actually. So, maybe we have to ask what Science had to the exclusion of myth, no?

Kermit: But what was science before the Modern Era?

Robert: That's what I mean. We are way before the modern era. So, we can't just say that Anaximander wanted a strictly scientific view of the world. Theoretical and rational, yes, but not necessarily scientific.

Kermit: I think this is right, but the first philosophers desired to understand the world in a rational way.

Robert: Okay, so what is the distinction between reason and myth?

Kermit: There is a distinction but not a difference.

Robert: Tell me please.

Kermit: Science is theorising about the universe. Religion is ritual that is based on myth. I was not present when they decided on that, unfortunately.

Robert: Hehe. Me neither! But yes I think that's where we stand. So, the pre-socratics encountered the question of reality when they began to take a theoretical 'view'. That what theory means in Greek, a view.

Kermit: Before the pre-Socratics people just held beliefs.

Robert: And enacted myths through ritual. It's not as though they walked in a vague and confused fog. But they did not think of themselves as separable from the action. Theory as a form fo knowledge makes that distinction for the first time.

Kermit: I think this is right. They wanted a better understanding of the world around them by observing it.

Robert: Okay, so let's ask about the content of their theories. If you had to pick one of the several ancient elements to be the arche or origin of all the rest, which would it be and why?

Kermit: The Atomism of Democritus and Leucippus.

Robert: How come?

Kermit: Because it explains the universe so well.

Robert: As opposed to whose view that fails miserably?

Kermit: Aristotle.

Robert: Haha! Shady lady. Why Aristotle fail so bad?

Kermit: Because Aristotle said that the purpose of life is to be happy and the purpose of mind is to reason.

Robert: So what? Is it the focus on purposes that causes problems?

Kermit: What if there are no purposes?

Robert: People would still use them as explanations all the time. They must have some ontological status even if they don't have any metaphysical status. Perhaps they are mythical and not rational.

Kermit: What is the difference between ontic and ontological?

Robert: Ontic describes the conditions of beings, while ontological describes the conditions of being, full stop.

Kermit: That makes sense. But too often the conditions of being depend on the historical conditions of beings.

Robert: Perhaps. Borges gives us this view through fiction, which means no one is too upset about it, even if they should be. Where do we stand to tell a story? Directly in the middle of it.

Kermit: I think this is right.

Robert: Homer invented this view of standing in the midst of the story, I think, in the Odyssey. It is very complex temporally when compared with the Iliad. And compared to the pre-Socratics, who struggled with viewpoint and time.

Kermit: Do you think that there is a natural point outside of time from which to view the universe?

Robert: Yes, the author's viewpoint.

Kermit: Not really. If there is no time why would they write?

Robert: In its most basic characterization, fiction exists exactly to bring things into existence that the real world lacks, no?

Kermit: I think that fiction fully creates new worlds that did not exist before. It is a way of understanding the world, but that does not mean that the world did not exist without it.

Robert: Right, and it takes 'real' world time to write a work, whether theoretical, mythical, or fictional, but the temporal effect produced by each is very different. I think Heidegger would have benefitted from such an insight.

Kermit: Wittgenstein is clear that philosophy usually operates in a fictional space rather than in real life.

Robert: I agree, and a fictional time. But, whatever is meant by influence allows us to bring elements of the fictional, mythical, or theoretical world into our own, re-impacting real life from seed crystals of unreality.

Kermit: Fiction is a great source of inspiration.

Robert: That's vapid, Kermie.

Kermit: Okay. Sometimes.

Robert: *eye roll*

Kermit: But there is sometimes when I don't understand the world around me and philosophy helps me to do so.

Robert: And so it must have been with the pre-Socratics, no? It's like they say about God for some people: if he didn't exist, he would necessarily be invented.

Kermit: The pre-Socratics would have had to do philosophy. Philosophy is the practice of asking questions about what it means to be human, what it means to be part of the universe, etc.

Robert: And valuing the answers to those questions, unlike Homer, who cared much more for the Gods.

Kermit: I think that it is central to philosophy that one care about what philosophers think. But what I am trying to get at is the question 'what is a philosopher?'.

Robert: I am, and you are, when we ask serious questions like these and look for serious answers.

Kermit: I don't think I am, because I am just a part of a hive mind. We are philosophers with the ability to ask and answer questions with respect to the world around us and with respect to our place in it. Thus, we create new philosophical information and use the information that has accumulated.

Robert: Hmm, interesting notion.

[Token limit]