“Language is that by means of which we communicate, but language is not the objects and things out there. So we don’t communicatie the things out there to our neighbors. We communicate language, which is something other than the objects. And so just as what is seen could not come to be something heard and vice versa, so also since the things themselves lie outside us, they could not come to be our language; but since they are not language, they cannot be communicated to another.”
Gorgias, On what is not, reported by Sextus Empiricus, adv math, VII 84-5
λόγος, νόμος , φύσις
As an anecdote I would like to start with one of Zeno’s paradoxes. The paradox of motion or Dichotomy can form the illusion that motion is not really possible. Suppose someone wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.
In our mind we go into what is called ‘reductio ad absurdum‘, it’s a rhetorical technique, that constructs through language, an infinite loop which disguise itself as a ‘proof by contradiction‘, meaning reflecting the truth by a way leading otherwise than a logical conclusion. Thomson’s lamp can be seen as a more modern example of that paradox which results in undecidability a question in which a logical conclusion cannot be derived. Let’s talk about it.
In the case of Zeno’s paradox of motion, we can conclude only one ‘logical’ conclusion, that is there’s no motion possible, we cannot arrive nowhere since we always have to pass half way there, resulting in reaching nowhere. Now, We all know practically that we can definitely get from A to B and motion is possible so how do we get the illusion that its not possible ? The mechanism within our mind has a split personality, one part believes in wholeness – meaning continuum, objects that are not divisible, the other part believes in quantity – objects that are dividable. When we try to connect both we get something like ‘Every single is dividable to the multiple of singels‘ and that goes on forever. Therefore destroying our definition between what is single and multiple, each one is actually endlessly referring the other one. Aristotle reflected on this a bit with the ‘table of opposites’ :
I already discussed part of this in the article here. In our thinking (I might not approve the whole list suggested by Aristotle), we are making fundamental distinction between some elements, which sometimes are define as opposites, for example nothing and infinity, its the most basic opposition there is because it represents Death and Life.
Being and Nothingness are terms which we can not directly relate to, because in some aspects, they represent things we don’t understand, like the fact of ‘being’ (alive) and the fact of ‘not being’ (dead). they both represent just the opposite of the other, this is where it becomes the subject of language and semiotics.
I can imagine that the state of being, continuum exists in our mind as a result of evolution, the notion of life and continuity is the strongest one, our psyche invented various representation of continuity : reincarnation, god and the afterlife, having offsprings, sustainability etc’. The functionality of such ideas, which are sometimes just a figment of imagination, is to not acknowledge the fact of death.
“That to Study Philosophy is to Learn to Die”
Michel de Montaigne
We come back to the paradox, the ancient Greeks treated philosophy as a way of exploration, which was not dedicated to natural observation but rather to giving answers to matters that are not related to our senses and physical observations. Thoughts and language give meaning to things, they define value and it is mostly something that an adult human is capable of (in comparison to kids or animals), language is a rich and complex catalogue of our senses and how we see the world, but also something quite different : our thoughts and feelings.
Quantitative description, developed to math as a language. The Pythagorean approach was the root of the development in western society from the philosophical point of view, it was used not only as a useful tool, but as a key to understanding of the universe, our mind and beauty. In that way, math could and still provides a definition of what we conceive as order and causality, we onderstand the relations and ratios between objects better through math.
In the basic form, the Pythagorean approach shows us an objective, common, universal definition and preference to ratios and proportion. In geometry and music for example, Pythagoras discovered that there is order, a fixed ratio, pattern or logic, in certain geometries and certain musical tones that aesthetically are aurally pleasing. More than than specific discovery of how to calculate through geometry or tune a musical instrument to play music it suggested something a lot bigger : that the whole universe is open for description and understanding through numbers, ratios and proportions. The Logos is the key.
At a later point, we discovered that more complex patterns are usually based on those basic universal ones, a complexity can be discovered or created. Think about the basic reflation of notes which is fixed and universal and then the complexity of a whole composition which is then becomes something different.
In the example of music and science, our explorations borders on disorder (what one might call entropy), the progression of western culture is always to expand that border, meaning finding more complex recognizable patterns, expanding complexity at the expanse of entropy. It is about finding complex connections and relation between objects. In science we can predict, understand and describe, better, in music we can expand our emotional spectrum.
LOGOS – λόγος
Logos, ‘I say’, opinion, words, speech
Accurate prediction is the name of the game, in the advantage of survival. The varying factor is the range of probability. A game beween order and chaos, negentropy and entropy. Our senses react to our surrounding with various sensations, The brain can make distinction and thus cataloging those into a database of impressions. The ability to make the distinction and to hold a big amount of data in memory result in complexity and it is crucial. Language is a collective representation of the catalouge, it is used as a reference tool between animals, some would use it to point to danger and some would use it to refer to grief in a form of a musical piece (which can be called ‘Ein deutsches Requiem‘).
Different cultures have different collective representation of the world. It is not per se that the content of the catalouge defines our perspective, but also the way we use this catalouge. The use of language is always political because it is what structures relations and hierarchy and preferences in our mind. One may think about a totalitarian regime but don’t forget to think about the relation between adults and children as well.
In Language we can find many types of words that point out to different things: colors and musical tones are visual and aural, sadness and melancholy are referring emotions, a horse and a tree are referring to real world objects. Ee can study how a word can be used to point, describe a property or refer to feeling or an ideal. When we learn our first language not only we are imposed upon an exiting order of convention, but apparently we are born fitted to learn that specific language as a product of evolutionary development (we can refer to Noam Chomsky).
The Logos gets its name from Greek and not for nothing, between the time of Parmenides and Heraclitus through Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (500-300 BC) , the subject of thought, language and the reachability of the exterior world was discussed in all variations. Language is not only ‘a description of the world’ – it is a biased, not-objective one.
“The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato”
Alfred North Whitehead
There was so much meaningfulness in the ancient Greek texts that we are still discussing the same topics with the same types of answers, the philosophical development is mostly in depth and almost not in width, meaning in essence we are not asking new questions but rather getting different detailed answers.
There are some exceptions. After the revival and classical period we got self-aware of history (which expressed itself for example in Marxism), and further on Existentialism and phenomenology, then in the 20th century we became more aware of the importance of language.
The reason why we still think in the Greek terms, which is the root of philosophical thought, might be because that our basic assumptions and method of self validation is still Greek, it is the Logos.
That idea has been suggested by many thinkers : Rousseau, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Derrida.
In the pre Socratic period, language developed the tools to rationalize and validate itself. In addition to that there where opposing schools of thought who challenged rationality. Among them where the Sophists (500-300 BC), of which Gorgias was one (his quote is in the title). Until this day there are different opinions concerning the goal of challenging rationality, they vary from being purely nihilistic to the extent of marking a boundary of irrationality, meaning not directing us towards but warning us from a certain boundary (of what language can do through thought). On a personal note I associate a sophist Greeks as Gogias to be positive, meaning allowing progression, and thinkers like Derrida to be negative, trying to build and to show the last stop of progression, the only alternative we might have is to go back 2500 years and replace the logos with something else, with what then ? for sure a noble cause.
The Logos as a process involves a proof and the truth – a validation of itself. If a concept proved itself to match reality or the truth (helpful in predictive terms) then it is logic. In short, contemporary thinking had redefined what we call truth. The theory of relativity shows how one event is witnessed in different ways dependent on the point of view of the observer. Reality would stay the same reality everywhere, but individual perspective may vary : it is experienced differently from different point of views.
In addition today, in contrast with the Newtonian point of view, we are aware of elements that are not predictable. We accepted the problematical aspect that David Hume was pointing to: Prediction is causality, we know the chain cause and effect, but never the first cause on that chain. The reason of all reason. The reason of the Pythagoras to use plane geometry. ‘Ding an sich’.
There is no such thing as a black swan, until one appears in Australia, tomorrow the sun will shine but there was a time that it didn’t exist, global warming is also happening because of ice ages and the natural state of the universe is towards entropy, meaning completely nothing.
We cannot fully grasp reality because to grasp it by definition means changing it.
When we interface with reality it is with our senses, or a measurement tool. Reality for us is the perception of our senses and not reality itself. When Einstein finds that time and gravity are linked, we should not call it ‘the rules of the universe’ but rather ‘how our brain sees relations between objects’.
Culturally the Logos collapsed in the end of the 19th century. In philosophy, literature, art and science there was a paradigm shift, going away from Mimesis (representation of the self, the Logos). Darwinism showed a model in which Causation does not receive the pedestal, but rather existence and survival. In science entropy in the common state of things, disorder, randomness and chaos. Society is going through adulthood, becoming more reflexive, psychologically acknowledging its ends.
“To a level of consciousness unknown to Christendom, we want life, we crush the dream of heaven”
Mayhem, in the lies where upon you lay, grand declaration of war
Nomos – νόμος
Nomos, “Law”, Custom
Nomos is the law and custom of a certain society, in a way it is something between the Logos and Physis (which will be discussed later). Physis is nature and is beyond human control and conventions. Law (Nomos) generally was thought to be a human invention arrived at by consensus for the purpose of restricting natural freedoms for the sake of expediency and self-interest.
Plato and other philosophers wanted that the Nomos would be based upon reasoning (Logos). The sophists, by using philosophy as a rhetoric measure, showed the potential danger in basing the Nomos on the Logos. They showed how much influence words have on one’s perspective. For example: Being brain washed by a certain ideology, like political, liberal, national, religious, etc’. The other thing is by using sophistry such as a paradox, you can logically convey a false perception of reality for example that motion is not really possible. I’m taking it to the extreme to make an argument, just like the sophists might have done.
Physis – φύσις
Physis, nature
In terms of pre-Socratic philosophy Physis, the laws of nature, contradicted the one made by man. Since Aristotle, it was more used in what we call scientific way (meta-physical back then) to say in general.
The Greeks looked upon nature as something external to man, because of our Logos, our rationality there is a big difference between us to rest the natural kingdom, from the obvious things, the more obscure ones.
Conclusion : relating to our time
The conception of Physis / nature is a whole discussion by itself. Noticeably with the sense i’m talking about here with the Sophists, Rousseau, Nietzsche and Derrida. Derrida showed how in semiotics, the study of language, nature is the completing, doppelganger, coupled term for objectivity. For us nature is the category of everything except man. Without man nature is actually just another name for god. Derrida suggests that the partition between man and nature might/should not exist, the semantic difference between man and nature might/should not exist. In other words Logos or language is just an illusion or a false structure, with semantic deconstruction we falsify the walls between ourselves and the external world, showing the subject was never really there. Actually Derrida is a direct follower of Nietzsche and the Sophists in his relation to ‘nature’, he just developed on the semantic deconstruction front, taking Rousseau as an inspiring test-case.
Like I mentioned before, I see the move of Derrida as a last piece of a chain. Deconstruction can only point out that Logic and Objectivity cannot assign universal value therefore only subjectivity exists, or nothing. Positively generating an explosion in artistic terms, but Nietzsche might have warn us about its nihilistic consequences, that in 2020 are definitely showing.
The hope of the enlightenment
Logos is dead. That might not necessarily be true, it might need a bit of adjustment or a new definition all together.
What did Pythagoras find ? did he fail to touch reality ? what is then the status of plane geometry and of music today ? if we accept the claim the Logos and therefore objectivity is dead, no longer a valid terms with its old definition, then we should understand what would forever still be the root of western thinking without having to abandon it all together or to replace it with another (a process that Oswald Spengler already predicted with detail).
I have looked for the answer to that question, but I did come up with one of my own.
Logos is humanism
What did the Sophists and Nietzsche warned us about ? In the end its about falling to irrationality without a proper definition of rationality, or even a more elaborated situation on top of this one.
Logic can derive with irrational conclusions when it relates to things which are not in human scale. When relating to absolution in the form of purity, perfection or nothingness, is where things get out of hand.
“Nietzsche would remove the concept of sin from the world”
Walter A. Kaufmann
The Logos then is redefined in the shape of human-scale-logic. We will have to put some scientific and philosophical theories in a different category. This is also a way to still keep a universal theory which is then valid until a certain extend, a certain scale, theory LTD.
Changes and the re-evaluation of values are then coming from the inside in what I refer to as transcendence. This topic is elaborated in my other article here.
The ancient Greeks described in their tragedies the conflict beween the Logos, Nomos and Physis. The horrific deed, the vision of human suffering that follows, the deeper knowledge gained by that experience, the re-affirmation of greatness of man and the value of human life, which is the consequence of of knowledge, which begins with suffering. This scheme does comes into play with various writings in literature. We are not living in those times anymore, therefore we develop these formulas into something more progressive, since we are (for now, in the west) continuing what they have started.
Leibniz, one of the most brilliant minds in human history, had the vision to construct a language of pure math to describe everything in the universe. The same ambition led to the “tractatus logico-philosophicus” written by Wittgenstein, it had the ambition to identify the relationship between language and reality and to define the limits of science.
The conclusions reflected were already those in what Gorgias acknowledged in 500BC : what is seen cannot be heard and what is heard cannot be seen.
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
Wittgenstein, Tractatus