Scribes: Atis
Reisenauer and Matthew
Stupar
These minutes
were not spoken; for another version,
Professor
Hutchinson began the September 28th lecture with the theme of fragments. With
Empedocles we have an ancient philosopher who wrote in Homeric hexameter such
that commentators are better able to quote accurately since the rigorous
meter he used lends itself well to being translated and interpreted down
through the ages. Many scholars are well versed in Homeric hexameter, which
also helps to elucidate the meaning in Empedocles' poetry. Professor Hutchinson
then proceeded to state that the surfacing of papyrus fragments continues into
the present. He explained that the more recent the philosopher the more fragments
available. He also mentioned that at times, new fragments are discovered. Such
is the case with Empedocles of Acragas. He stated that with Empedocles we are
better able to piece together his work, to draw greater understanding from it
compared with other earlier philosophers in large part because ancient papyrus
scrolls have turned up to fill in missing fragments.
Professor
Hutchinson began to relate that while in Cambridge he remembered having heard
rumours of a newly discovered papyrus scroll attributed to Empedocles the
contents of which are newly published in the First Philosophers. Then,
Professor Hutchinson began to explain the historic chain of events that led to
this, another first. The papyrus scroll is noted as coming from Strasburg (see
reference for F20 p.149), but was brought there only recently by a German
antiquarian. This German it was related at length had bought the papyrus for a
sizeable amount from an ancient artifact dealer in either Alexandria or
Cairo, the same dealers who inadvertently rely on tomb-robbers for their stock
of Ancient Egyptian artifacts. The papyrus scrolls then fell into the hands of
the German state during the war when the Germans occupied Strasburg and seized
the papyrus.
The
significance of the papyrus scroll is that it was a more complete section of a
known work of Empedocles. This new information provided not only more lines of
the poem, but also allowed philosophers and historians to align previous
fragments into their proper order. The new findings also helped to establish
that Empedocles had written only the one poem. Before the finding, it had been
widely thought that he had actually written two poems: Purification, dealing with spiritual matters and On Nature, dealing with the physical world. At this time, Professor Hutchinson
pointed out that we can occasionally obtain additional information from
antiquity in modern times. He also pointed out that the Waterfield text was the
first popular book to contain the fullest form of the Empedocles fragment in F20.
Fragment 20 in the text, then is the effect of a remarkable chain of events,
and marks the first time the papyrus has been published in a popular work for
students of ancient philosophy.
In
general Empedocles in his poetry responds to the philosophical investigations
of previous philosophers by giving his own account of the occurrence of natural
phenomena. Empedocles' responses are primarily triggered by the reflections of
Pythagoras and Parmenides. The influence of Pythagoras on Empedocles is evidenced
by the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul. F38 on page 154 was read at
length and Professor Hutchinson expounded on its meaning and significance. The
first line was found to mean that the fathers of dead sons would bring up their
sons again but this time in the shape of a lamb, so that when they slaughtered
that same lamb when it grew fatter they were unknowingly contributing to their
son's death. Professor Hutchinson
drew attention to the fact that in the time of the ancient philosophers, fathers
living to witness their sons succumb to fatal disease was not uncommon. As a
result of the belief in the transmigration of the soul the premeditated
slaughter of an animal necessarily became a sacred act. The killing of an animal solely for its
meat became forbidden on the grounds that you never knew whose soul might be
inhabiting an animal’s body.
Nevertheless,
this did not stop adherents from consuming meat, rather every act of animal
slaughter became a ritual sacrifice designed to honour the gods who
conveniently enough were placated by the smell of smoking meat. Peculiarly, the moral conscience was
pricked by the consumption of fish.
Professor Hutchinson suggested that a possible reason for this was
because fish were more expensive and not as accessible. It is not clear why
fish were exempt from this dietary stricture or whether this means human souls
could never inhabit a fish. It is clear that meat-lovers who took advantage of
the absence of constraints on fish by eating them with unreserved abandon were
dubbed "fish-eaters,” a term that became synonymous for a
self-indulgent morally decrepit person.
Subsequently,
this question was raised: “Could you sacrifice purely for sacrifice and not
for meat?” Professor
Hutchinson confirmed that this was a possibility. Then the question was raised, “So there was no feeling
then, that you were killing Johnny?” To which professor Hutchinson replied that it was possible
because in those days the sacrifice would not be a personal gain for the donor,
but rather the meat would be given to the temple. In the scenario, the family
making the sacrifice would offer the entire animal to the temple/priests and
therefore would be exempt from any “blood-guilt” that would
accompany a sacrifice. Professor
Hutchinson also pointed out that there were alternative sacrifices that could
be given such as fruits.
Then
another question was raised, questioning how widespread the teaching of
reincarnation was during the time of Empedocles. Professor Hutchinson replied by describing how the doctrine
came to arise in Ancient Greece in the first place. Plato was responsible for
increasing the spread of the belief through his arguments. It was emphasized
that the belief was not mainstream and did not permeate the traditional Greek
religious belief system. It was then explained that Plato's beliefs could be
traced to Pythagoras. Pythagoras in turn probably came across the belief during
his traveling years in Egypt and the Near East from where we can conclude the
belief in reincarnation originated It is also known that some philosophers did
hold the doctrine even though they also held traditional Greek views as
well. It was further emphasized
how difficult it was to say how widespread the belief was but that it was
clearly imported from outside Greece since, during the time concerned, it did
not rank highly as a belief of the majority. Professor Hutchinson explained
that it is difficult to know how many people knew of the teaching in their
time. He made a comparison between
the Greeks and reincarnation to early Christian communities who were uncertain
of the physical resurrection of the body.
After
discussing the Pythagorean influence on Empedocles' poem, Professor Hutchinson
spoke about the Parmenidean influence therein. This could be seen in the way in
which Empedocles tries to account for the diversity of observable phenomena,
that is the world of change, difference, while at the same time dealing with
the challenge of Parmenides which effectively rules out the existence of
difference on the grounds that nothing can come into being from not-being. It
is also a response to Parmenides, as witnessed in his discussion of the root
elements of fire, water, earth, and air.
Professor
Hutchinson proceeded to expound on how Empedocles viewed himself and how those
in southern Italy viewed him. It
seems that Empedocles considered himself to be somewhat of a prophet, religious
leader, or shaman. The story is
told in T1 of Empedocles raising a woman from the dead and then going off to
his own death. Professor Hutchinson
said that a loose comparison could be made between Empedocles and Jesus in the
way that they performed miracles (resurrecting others) and then were led to
their own deaths. It was made
clear that there existed dissimilarities as well such as the way Empedocles
viewed himself as one of the gods, whereas that was not the case with Jesus who
emphasized the existence of only one God in relation to whom he was human.
The
Empedoclean cosmological theory was given a cursory glance- the theory of the
cycles of unity and disunity and the metaphors of attraction (love) and
separation (strife). Then Empedocles' physiological explanation of vision was
discussed, where he believed
that the eye contained fire and that the pupil acted as a screen against the
elements of water, wind and earth. Professor Hutchinson then commented that
Empedocles through F41 bore some resemblance to Thales and Anaximander. Finally, Professor Hutchinson stated
his over-arching impression of Empedocles' lasting contribution to philosophy
in the form of a lingering doubt as to its real value. Professor Hutchinson
explained that Empedocles claims to know a lot but his claims are very
speculative and the confidence he shows in his knowledge is disputable. It was spoken at length of his over
confidence in his knowledge and that even Aristotle showed similar doubts and
criticized Empedocles for his over-speculation. Professor Hutchinson said that Empedocles' confidence in his
speculative philosophy came from his belief that certain fundamental principles
should be held in higher regard than others.
F7
was read at length to show how Empedocles relied on the senses for the
attainment of knowledge. The
fragment explains that no one channel of understanding should be considered
better than another, but that they should all be used in order to make things
clear to the mind. The mind is
viewed as the final arbiter that decides on what is the important, fundamental
knowledge. F8 outlines the
unquestioning confidence Empedocles had for the fundamental principles he
had for attaining knowledge. F8 is
Empedocles attempt to persuade a person to “plant” knowledge in the
mind and keep it safe. If this is
done successfully, knowledge will always remain and it will produce more
knowledge. Empedocles used
extensive gardening metaphors in this explanation of knowledge.
Professor
Hutchinson raised a good point from one of the position papers that if insight
is left on its own, it will collect dust.
In order for it to be useful, insight must be constantly “turned
over”. Contrary to
Empedocles’ position, advancement of any sort comes not from
unquestioningly adhering to a set of fundamental principles but rather from
challenging the position of established doctrine. In closing Empedocles was
seen as lacking somewhat an epistemological position with which to strengthen
the foundations of a noble school of thought.