CHAPTER TWO

METAPHYSICS

We can recall that metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies about the nature of reality
and being (the essence of all things). Ontology is a subdivision of metaphysics, which is the
study of being and existence.Cosmology is also one branch of Metaphysics that study about the
nature. There are two major schools of thought in metaphysics. These are Materialism and
Idealism.

Among the several major schools of thought in the history of philosophy, materialism and
idealism have been the two great camps or divisions. Question: What would account for their
division or what is the cause for their difference? The point is that it is the question of reality.
The question as to what the ultimate source of reality would be. According to Friedrch Engels, it
is the answers, which the philosophers gave to this question that split or divided them into two
great camps, namely materialism and idealism.

2.1 Materialism: matter is basic, matters most, and is the mother of life.

 Materialism defined:
It is the view or position that the ultimate constituent of reality is matter or reality is ultimately
matter. To the question of reality, materialism answers that 1) the world is constituted of matter
in motion (material particles), and there are no spiritual components to it. 2)Materialism, in its
more technical and metaphysical sense, states that matter is the ultimate reality of all things.
More generally, everything in the universe from subatomic particles to extended substances
such as tables, chairs, dogs, cats, and so on as well as to thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and
ideals isreducible to matter, to physical states, to a position in space and time, to what can be
quantified.3) It is the doctrine that all facts of the universe may be understood as matter and the
building blocks of nature are composed of sheer matter.

 Engel’s Conception of Materialism:

He observed that Materialism as a philosophy means understanding nature as it is, without any
additions. From the standpoint of Engels, the world around is nothing else but matter in motion
in its various forms and manifestations. There is nothing in the world that is not a concrete form
of matter, and one of its definite states or properties. Even the most abstract ideas, and concepts,
including sensations and perceptions are the result of the activity of a material organ( the human
brain) and reflect the properties of material or physical objects. There is no such a thing as mind
(an immaterial entity or organ).

In connection to this, the pre-Socratic philosophers such as Democritus (460-360.B.C) and

Leucippus (?) taught that all things including the soul are made of indivisible particles or atoms.

11 | P a g e
The early Greek philosopher Epicurus (342-270B.C.) adopted this idea of Democritus and
Leucippus, and concluded from the materialistic nature of the soul that upon death, its parts
disperse, and therefore there can be no life after death. To recapitulate, the materialist thus
concludes that adequate explanation of our universe must proceed materialistically and not
spiritually at any level.

2.2 Idealism: Mind or Idea matters most.

Idealism is derived from the word ‘idea”, which literally means to see and to know. If we look
around, we can see a hard and fast material world out there. We can only look through the eyes
of our mind. Anything we know about the material or physical world out there or independent
of us, we know by having an idea of it. Thus, we can say that all we really know is our ideas.

 Idealism defined
Idealism is the philosophical theory that reality is essentially mental or spiritual. Idealism is
opposed to materialism, the theory that reality is physical.It is the metaphysical theory, which
states that mind is primary or ultimate and that all things are thus reducible to mind and ideas.
This means that all things are constituted by mind and its ideas. It is the belief that reality is
essentially idea, thought, or mind rather than matter. Idealists invariably emphasize the mental or
spiritual, not the material, presenting it as the creative force or active agent behind all things.

To the question what is reality, idealism answers that because reality can be thought (since it can
be grasped by the mind), it must in some sense be of a mental nature. i.e., reality itself must be
some sort of idea.

 Types of Idealism
These are 1) objective idealism and 2) subjective idealism.

1) Objective idealism: it is the older school, which began with the ancient Greek philosopher
Plato. It maintains that reality consists of ideal, immaterial forms existing outside the mind and
that the material world is merely a pale reflection of the ideal world. The ideas of things exist
apart from our perception of them. What we know must be capable of being grasped or perceived
by our ideas. It must be of a nonphysical or nonmaterial nature or of a mental or spiritual nature.

The central argument of an objective idealist is that all things are made out of mind and ideas,
but that things exist objectively (.i.e., out there) or independently of our perception or knowledge
of them. They would continue to exist even if we did not. Objective idealists maintain that there
is an objective reality, and that it must be explained as nonphysical (or mental) in nature. They
also claim that the world (or reality) is intelligible. i.e of the nature of ideas because it is a
product of mind. According to objective idealist, the core of reality must be understood as
spiritual, but there is also a physical dimension to it- as defended by Plato.

12 | P a g e
 Plato (427-347 B.C.)
Plato was an objective idealist. He believes that reality is intelligible. i.e., of the nature of ideas,
and only apprehensible by the mind), but also that it exists outside our minds. He believes that he
discovers a more universal, objective, perfect, eternal, permanent, transcendent, archetypal
(model), etc of reality which lies behind or goes beyond the limited, subjective, imperfect,
changeable, temporary, variegated(or diversified) things of this world. Plato’s universal,
objective, and so on world is called the world of Being. This world is populated or constituted by
realities called the Ideas or Forms. The limited, subjective, and so on world is called the world of
Becoming/Appearance. This world consists of particular physical things. The Ideas/Forms are
the ultimate causes of the particular things. They give us the essential pattern or the very
essence of what actually is/ exists.

For Plato, Ideas are more real than particular concrete empirical things. Reality is Eidos, which
means Idea/Form. By Idea Plato does not mean subjective mental images (or something that is
on any particular person’s mind), but rather he means the essence of a thing. For example, there
is the Form or the Idea of Triangle, of Beauty, Table, Tree, Gold, Woman, Girl, etc. There are
also particular physical things (or objects) and persons such as triangles, trees, tables, gold,
women, men, girls, and so on in this world, and they are mere copies of their respective Forms.

Plato and Participation

Plato argues that the particular material things or individual persons derive their nature from their
respective Forms or Ideas through participation or imitation. For instance, a beautiful thing is so
because it participates in the Idea of Beauty and so on.

To recapitulate, according to objective idealist, there is an objective reality, i.e., the Idea or
Form, and this reality must be understood as of the mental/spiritual/nonphysical/nonmaterial
nature since it can be thought or grasped by the mind. So, reality is essentially idea, thought, or
mind rather than matter.

2) Subjective Idealism: things (or ideas) depend on perception for their existence. A subjective
idealist believes that all things are made out of mind and ideas, but that these things have no
existence apart from perception of them. This means that they would not continue to exist if all
perceivers did stop to exist. We can recall that as to an objective idealist, things would continue
to exist even if we (the perceivers) did not exist because though, according to objective idealist,
things are essentially ideas and can thus be grasped or perceived by our mind, they exist
nonetheless objectively (or they exist independent of our perceiving or knowing them).

George Berkeley (1685-1753)

The English philosopher Bishop George Berkeley is generally recognized as a subjective idealist.
He was very much well-known for his famous philosophical doctrine of “esse est percipi,’ which
can be translated into English as ‘to be is to be perceived.’ Two points: in this doctrine,

13 | P a g e
Berkeley chiefly emphasizes two main points: First he is talking only about sensible or physical
objects (or things). Second, for him Existence is either to perceive or to be perceived. For him,
the existence of sensible ‘unthinking’ things consists in being perceived. This means that they
cannot exist without or independent of a mind perceiving.

There are also active (or conscious) minds or percipient subjects, besides sensible unconscious’
or unthinking things whose existence is to perceive rather than to be perceived. The central
argument of Berkeley is that Sensible or physical objects (or things) of human knowledge are
either ideas actually imprinted on the senses, or are ideas perceived by attending to the passions
and operations of the mind, or lastly are ideas formed by help of memory and imagination-either
compounding, dividing, or barely representing those originally perceived in the aforesaid/above-
mentioned means.

Therefore, for him, sensible things are collections or combinations of ‘sensations’ (or ideas), and
they cannot exist independent of a mind perceiving them. Question: One might ask that Does
not this table or chair have its own natural, real, absolute, and independent existence apart
from its being perceived by any perceiving minds/percipient subjects/conscious spirits/?
The point is that according to Berkeley what is said of the absolute or independent existence of
unthinking or unperceiving things without any relation to their being perceived seems perfectly
unintelligible/nonsense/meaningless/. For example, Berkeley asks what any other meaning the
proposition, ‘the table exists,’ does have than the table is perceived or perceivable. In this sense,
Berkeley says: “The table I write on, I say exists .i.e., I see and feel it; and if I were out of my
study I should say it existed, meaning thereby that If I was in my study I might perceive it, or
some other spirit (God) actually does perceive it. God, who is a universal and constant observer,
does actually perceive it.”

2.3 The Pre-Socratic Traditions or Theories

Here we can obviously notice the distinction between the pre-Socratic philosophers and Socrates
himself. The question is what would account for the difference between the two? The point is
that the philosophical thought propounded or proposed by pre-Socratic philosophers is different
from the philosophical thought initiated by Socrates in that: pre-Socratic philosophers were
concerned with studying the problem of the nature or the physical world, particularly “kosmos
“or cosmos, meaning “world-system/ world order, and they thus were known as cosmologists
(or natural philosophers). Whereas Socrates is often said to have brought philosophy down to
the earth from the sky because unlike pre-Socratics, he was chiefly concerned with the questions
of human society such as morality, justice and so on. The three major pre-Socratic traditions or
Schools of thought were: A) The Ionians or the Milesians, B) the Italians, and C) the Pluralists.
These philosophers of pre-Socratic traditions are called the first metaphysicians since they were
the first to ask the question of ultimate reality. The common questions that these pre-Socratic
philosophers raised and attempted to address were: what is permanent in reality or what is the

14 | P a g e
unity of the world? Or what is the ultimate reality (or the one)? Or what is the one that
constitutes all things (or the world)? Or what is the essential nature of things?

In connection to this, we have to discuss the Problem of the One and the Many. When you
have a look at the surrounding world, it consists of multiplicity or multitude of things. Things
come into being (or existence) and passing away. This involves continuous processes. At that
time, the pre-Socratic philosophers observed these multiplicities of things and opted for the
origin of all these diverse things. This is generally termed as the problem of the one and the
many, which actually involves two questions: a)what is the ultimate reality (the one) and b)
how is everything else (the many) related to it? Briefly speaking, the problem of the One and the
Many states: the problem of identifying the ultimate reality (the one) that underlies all things (the
many) and of explaining the relation between them (or how the many derives from the one.

 The Ionians(Milesians)
The great Milesian or Ionian philosophers include Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus
and so on.

Thales of Miletus (624-546 B.C.)

Western philosophy came to birth about 600 B.C. More specifically, it came to birth in the city
of Miletus (a wealthy commercial city and a Greece seaport) on the western coast of Ionia( now
Turkey) in the person of Thales. Thales was traditionally regarded as the first philosopher, and
Aristotle calls him the founder of philosophy.

Thales and the question of reality: tothe question ‘what is ultimate reality?’, Thales answered,
first, that reality is one thing, and he identified it with water. So, water is reality is the first
metaphysical theory .i.e, the theory of reality. According to this theory, water is the origin of all
things. The question now is: why do you think Thales chooses water to play the role of the
primeval or primodial stuff or the single element out of which everything else originates?
Though there is no record how Thales came the conclusion that water is the cause of all things,
Aristotle speculates that he might have derived it from the observation of simple events as
follows: Water is a necessity for all living things. It is essential for all living things. Therefore,
Thales could not assume the existence of living things without water. Water, or moisture, seems
to be present in most things. Thales might perhaps have seen that the nutriment of all things is
moist. Aristotle speculates that Thales must have noticed that water is essential for the
nourishment of all things and that without moisture seeds will not for example, develop into
plants. Stated another way, Thales got his notion from the fact that of all things have a moist
nature, and water is the origin of the nature of moist things. Thus, water is the material principle
of moist things. Water seems to be everywhere. It bubbles up out of the ground; it comes down
from the sky, and it collects on windshields. Thus, it seems to be everywhere. As we observe the
vast expanses or areas of the ocean, it is true that there is more of this “stuff” than anything else
in the world. It should be noted that water, more obviously than other common substances, can
exist in different forms. It is the only naturally occurring substance that can be seen to vary from

15 | P a g e
solid to liquid to gas. You know that water exists usually in liquid form, but it can be frozen solid
(snow or ice) during the phenomenon of freezing, and it can exist as a gas during evaporation.

But, the accuracy of Thales’s analysis of the composition or the underlying element of all things
is far less important than the fact that he raised the question concerning the nature of the world.
He failed to address the relationship between the One and the Many. His contribution is that he
set the foundation for a new kind of inquiry, which is the question of reality.

Heraclitus of Ephesus( 540-480 B.C.) : The One and the Many

He was one of the Ionian philosophers. Heraclitus and the problem of the change/becoming:
Earlier Ionian philosophers for example, Thales attempted to describe the ultimate constituent of
the world around us, but Heraclitus emphasized a new problem, namely the problem of change.
The most characteristic feature of Heraclitus’s philosophical thought or idea of reality was that
“Reality is a flux or all things are in flux.” This means that all things are in a state of flux or
continuous movement and constant change. He expressed this concept of constant change by
saying that “you cannot step twice into same the river.” The question is: what does Heraclitus
exactly mean by this famous saying or pronouncement? The point is that the river changes
because “fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you.” This means that upon those who step into
the same river(s) flow other and yet other waters. He says that you can step several times into the
same river, but it is not the same because the waters into which you step the second time are
different waters. When you consider the river, it is the same river although the water that makes
it up is continually changing. A river is not identical with the water that makes it up, but is a kind
of structure or pattern that makes a unity of ever-changing waters. It is the One that holds
together the Many. The point is that all things are in flux, like the river ever-changing, yet
preserving an identity or unity or oneness through the changes. For that reason the river is the fit
symbol for reality. Here we simply notice the unity or oneness of things that are different.

Heraclitus and the unity of things: According to Heraclitus, this unity or oneness or identity of
things that are different-even sometimes opposite- is a theme (or the main idea) he plays in many
various/things, not only rivers, such as:1) human being,2) the path traced by the pen,3)sea
water,4) a road,5) a way, and so on. For example, he thought that rivers and human beings
exhibit or show the fascinating fact of becoming different and yet remaining the same. The point
is that when you consider the river, we return to the “same river” although fresh waters have
flowed into it. When you consider human being, the adult is still the same person as the
child. When you consider the path traced by the pen, it is straight and crooked (DK22 B59,
IEGP, 93). Here it is the same movement of the pen that is crooked or curved when you consider
the individual letters but also straight when you consider the line written. When you consider
sea water, it is very pure (drinkable and healthful) for fishes but very impure (undrinkable
and destructive) to men (DK22 B61, IEGP, 93). It is the same water that is both healthful and
destructive. The road from Addis Ababa to Mekelle is the road from Mekelle to Addis
Ababa. It is the same road though the directions are opposite. The way up and the way

16 | P a g e
down are the same (inseparable). The point is that all these above-mentioned examples
illustrate that there must be some basic unity between these many forms (or differences or
changes) and the single continuing element between the Many and the One. This means that
things change and take on different forms; nevertheless they contain something which continues
to be the same through all changes or flux. So, this is what he means by the unity of different
things-sometimes opposite things.

Logos or Reason as the universal law:

According to Heraclitus, logos or reason is the universal law. We can recall that Heraclitus is
talking about the constant change of reality. Nevertheless, this process of change is not a
haphazard or an unorganized movement but the product of God’s universal reason or logos or
simply law. This means that all perpetual or continuous change occurs or takes place according
to the universal law, and the world is, of course, governed by the logos or reason. Heraclitus
believes that because God is reason and God is the One, it follows that God is the universal
reason, which as such unifies all things and commands them to move and change in accordance
with thought and rational principles.

Human wisdom:
He also talks of human wisdom. For him, human wisdom is one thing .i.e., understanding the
logos. This means that the real wisdom consists in understanding with true judgment how the
world works, or how all things are governed. The question now is do you think Heraclitus
successfully resolves or overcomes the problem of the One and the Many? The point is that in
Heraclitus, we have a solution to the problem of the One and the Many. We do live in One
world, or in a Uni-verse, despite the multitude of apparently different and often conflicting things
we find in it. It is made one or unified by logos, or the rational. To put it in terms of river and
waters, we have to consider two things: 1) the world is in a constant change (different and
different waters flow). 2) the world is one unified whole( the river which is constant yet contains
this perpetual or continuous change. To sum up, Heraclitus emphasizes again and again that the
Many find their unity in the One.

B) The Italian Traditions

These traditions include two major schools of thought, namely Pythagoreans and Eleatics. In
the school of Pythagoreans we have Pythagoras whereas in the school of Eleatics we have
Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus of which we will discuss only Parmenides due to the importance
of his philosophical idea of reality.

Parmenides (515-450 B.C.): Only the One

He lived in the Greek colony of Elea in southern Italy. He lived at the opposite edge of Greek
civilization in what is now the southern part of Italy, where there were numerous Greek colonies.
He is the founder of the Eleatic school which includes important philosophers such as Zeno and
Melissus.

17 | P a g e
Only the one: according to Parmenides, there is no Many, only the one exists. The entire
universe consists of one thing, and he calls this single thing the One. Therefore, for him, reality
is One, which is Being.

The nature of Being or what there is:Whereas the Ionian or Milesian thinkers such as Thales,
Anaximander ,Anaximenes, and so on searched for the material originative source of cosmos or
the universe, Parmenides( one of the thinkers of the Italian traditions) posed a different kind of
question, which is “ what is the nature of Being?” or “ what are the true signs or predicates
of Being (or what there is”? Among other things, Parmenidean Being has the following
natures:

1) Being is ungenerated (or uncreated) and Indestructible)

This means that the One or Being does not come into being (or existence) and perish. It has no
beginning and end. It is eternal. For example think of a large oak tree comes into existence when
it emerges from a tiny acorn and then the tree goes out of existence when it dies or decomposes.
Generally speaking, we typically observe that things coming into existence and then going out of
existence. For him this is how things appear to our eyes (or senses) and this alleged process of
change is logically flawed (or mistaken). For example, think of the tree .i.e., an oak tree. First,
we say that the tree is not; then, we say that the tree is (or comes into existence); thirdly, we
say once again that the tree is not. Here, we begin and end with the impossible contention (or
argument) that something is not (or Non-existence or Non-Being). This must be rejected.
Therefore, Being is neither generated nor destroyed.

2) Being is undivided: it cannot be divided. There is no such a thing as diversity or plurality of

things.

3) Being is One (homogenous) and complete (like the bulk of a well-rounded sphere or
ball). Being is of One kind; thus it is not Many. It is complete because it just occupies the whole
space and there is no void (empty space) in the world to be occupied by an emerging reality. It is
equally balanced (it is equal to itself from every direction) and uniformly complete at every side.

4) It is continuous: it is outside any spatial application: it cannot be determined by any space.

5) It is eternal (timeless), permanent, immobile, unique (only one) .perfect, and so on.

The Two Realms/Worlds/ in Parmenides’s Philosophy

These two worlds are:1) the realm of Being or Reality or what is or what exists and 2) the realm
of Not-Being/Appearance or what is not or what does not exist. We can recall that we already
discussed the world of Being. Now let us view the world or the realm of Appearance in relation
to the senses. Parmenides readily admits or accepts that the world appears to us to be Many .i.e.,
the plurality or diversity of things and to change continuously when we perceive or conceive

18 | P a g e
through our senses. He admits that the senses tell us that all things in this particular visible world
change, move, and have beginning and end or come into existence and go out of existence.
Nevertheless, Parmenides strongly believes that in spite of appearances such as the existence of
Many things, change (coming into being and going out of being), motion and so on that we
perceive through our senses, there is only one single reality, which is unchangeable and eternal.
This reality is only the One or Being. Therefore, for him, appearance, change, motion, the
existence of Many things (plurality or diversity) that our common sense tells us are simply unreal
or illusion. According to him, our sense perception deceives us. He argues that in reality there is
no change, motion, and so on. Reality is not found in this visible and changeable world. The
question now is why he argues so. This question leads us to discuss the following idea.
 Parmenides and Logical Reasoning or Argument:
Parmenides strongly believes in logical reasoning or argument than what he sees with his eyes or
what he perceives through his senses. Thus, he tells us that do not rely or depend on sensory
experience, but on reason alone. He adds that do not believe the senses, and you must go
wherever the argument takes you even if it contradicts common sense and the persuasive
evidence of the senses. Therefore, Parmenides rejects our common sense perceptions of the
world that exhibit or show change and multiplicity. He calls for reliability on reason alone. Thus,
Parmenides is rightly called the first rationalist philosopher in the history of western philosophy.
Question: what is that which convinces or persuades Parmenides to reject our senses and to
accept reason alone? The point is that Parmenides tells us that the content of his philosophy
(mo:poem) has been revealed to him by divine powers. Accordingly, the goddess reveals to him
two ways. These are: “the way of Opinion” and” the way of Truth”.
A) “The way of Opinion”: this way consists of the “opinions of mortals”, which deal not with
reality but with appearance. B) “The way of Truth”: this way deals with reality, not with
appearance. Now, what lies behind the distinction between Reality/Being and Appearance/Not-
Being is Parmenides’s equally important distinction between Opinion and Truth. Here,
Parmenides insists that multiplicity, change and motion result or come from a confusion to
differentiate between Appearance and Reality. In this connection, he tells us that Appearance
cannot produce more than opinion (which is derived from senses) whereas Reality is the basis of
truth (which is recognizable by reason). This is why he believes that opinion derived from
common sense must yield to or obey the activity of reason, and reason is able to discern(or
recognize) the truth about things. Thus, he tells us that there is only the One and there can be no
change, motion, many things and so on.
Thus, Parmenides criticizes humans for being misled, misguided, or deceived by their senses. He
says humans erroneously regard cosmos or reality as not that of One Being, but that of ‘many
things.” Parmenides’s position is clearly directly against the Ionian thinkers and particularly the
ever-flowing Becoming of Heraclitus. Finally, for Parmenides, Heraclitean Becoming must be
rejected and replaced by Parmenidean Being.

C) The Pluralists
This tradition includes Empedocles and Anaxagoras. As may be guessed from the name, the
pluralists sought to identify reality with a plurality of substances while maintaining that each of
these, at least, is Being and thus One and immutable or unchangeable. This means that an appeal
to plural substances is the root of all things in the world and each of these roots is permanent.

19 | P a g e
Empedocles of Agrigentum in Sicily (probably 490-430 B.C.)

He was the first of the pluralists to posit or suggest the four traditional elements such as earth,
air, fire, and water as principles or roots of all things. He in addition posited two specific forces
such as Love (Harmony) and Strife (Hate or Discord) which draw the four elements together and
separate them respectively in an endless cycle. According to him, Love is the principle of
unification and attraction whereas Hate is the force of repulsion or separation and division. A
world, such as ours, results or comes into existence when the four elements are unified under the
attraction of Love. All things in the world or universe are thus reducible to these four elements,
and things are united by Love and separated by Hate or Strife.

 Empedocles’s Views on Heraclitus’s and Parmenides’s Reality

The Pluralists in general and Empedocles in particular thought that there are some elements of
truth both in Heraclitus’s and Parmendes’s views of reality. Let us see how Empedocles
attempted to combine the views of his predecessors (Heraclitus and Parmenides). He did not take
either side. He believed that the arguments both for and againstmotion and change have some
merits or advantages. Therefore, he thereby discovered a consistent way of saying that there is
change and at the time affirming that, Reality is fundamentally changeless. Like Parmenides,
Empedocles agreed that Reality/Being is uncreated and indestrutible and that it simply is. This is
a similarity or an agreement between Empedocles and Parmenides. Unlike Parmenides,
Empedocles believed that Being/Reality is not One but Many( these are the four eternal elements
such as water, air, fire, ,and earth) which are changeless. This is a difference between the two.
Empedocles rejected the idea of only the One (the idea that Reality consists simply of the One)
because to accept the idea of only the One requires us to deny the reality of change/motion.
Therefore, for Empedocles the phenomenon of change/motion is obviously acceptable. This is an
agreement between Empedocles and Heraclitus.

In this regard, Empedocles argued that the objects or things we see and experience do if fact
change .i.e., come into existence and are destroyed .i.e., go out of existence. Question: but the
question is why such change and motion are possible? The point is that since objects or things
are composed of many material particles (the four elements), it follows that what explains the
change and motion in objects or things that we see and experience around us is the mixture and
separation of these four elements but not their transformation. Note: he writes there is “only a
mingling or an amalgamation and separation of what has been mingled.” This simply means
that his four eternal elements mix or mingle together to form objects and separate, and thereby
make possible change and motion.
Nevertheless, his four elements can never be transformed into something else (they can never be
destroyed) because they are changeless and eternal. Thus, although objects or things can change
and move, as Heraclitus said, the particles of which they are composed are, as Parmenides said
about the One, changeless and eternal. This is the first part of Empedocles’ theory.
The second part of his theory is about the two specific forces in nature, Love (Harmony) and
Hate (Strife or Discord), that animate or cause the process of changes. Here the four elements
mix or are separated from each other depending on how much Love or Hate is present.
Empedocles says that there are four stages to the never-ending process/cycle. 1) The first stage:
when only the force of Love is present and that of Hate is completely absent. In this case, the

20 | P a g e
four elements are fully mingled together and held in harmony by the governing principle of
Love. 2) The second stage: the force of Hate starts to invade or control the objects or things but
there is still much Love present than Hate. 3) the third stage: the force of Hate predominates or
dominates objects or things and the particles fall into quarrel or conflict and begin to separate or
disintegrate. 4) The fourth stage: only the force of Hate is present, and the four elements
disintegrate into their own independent entities such as water, air, fire and earth. Then, the
elements are again ready to begin a new cycle as the force of Love returns to attract the elements
into harmonious combinations. This process continues without end.

2.4 Plato’s Metaphysics

I. Things and Forms To understand Plato's worldview, it is important to grasp the

distinction that he makes between sensible "things" and "forms." Things are those
aspects of reality which we perceive though our senses: a tree, a car, a table, chair, a
beautiful model, etc. Everything that we experience in the world of sensation is
constantly changing (the table will start to get worn down, the beautiful model will age
with time), imperfect and often fleeting. This is the realm of appearances, and we all
know that appearances can be deceptive. Whereas things change, decay, and ultimately
fade away, the Forms (the Greek term is Eidoswhich is sometimes translated as Ideas)
are eternal and unchanging. This is the realm of perfect concepts and is grasped, not by
the senses, but by the reason.
II. II. The Two World Theory As you may have noticed, for Plato there are two fundamental
aspects or realms of reality---the realm of the senses and the realm of the forms. These
two realms can be contrasted in the following way:
Sensible World World of the Forms
appearance (seems real) reality (is real)
transcendent (beyond space and
immanent (within space and time)
time)
becoming (ever changing) being (eternal and unchanging)
particular and imperfect absolute and perfect
many instances (copy; imitation) one essence (archetype)
perceived by senses known by reason
subjective (dependent upon my objective (exist independently of
perception) my mind)
e.g., a table, a just act, a beautiful e.g., Table, Justice, Beauty, Circle,
model, a circle, Sue Man

For Plato it is the world of the Forms (the realm of being) that is "really real" world; the world
that we perceive with our senses (the realm of becoming) is little more than an imitation of this
ultimate reality. He believes that for particular and imperfect thing that exists in the sensible
realm (a table, a just act, a beautiful model, a circle) there is a corresponding absolute and perfect

21 | P a g e
Form (Table, Justice, Beauty, a Circle). III. Significance of the Two World Theory But why did
Plato need to devise such an elaborate metaphysical system to ground his ethics? The answer
seems to be that he trying to respond to the relativism of the Sophists, who were persuasively
arguing that true and false, good and bad, were simply matters of opinion. Plato clearly
recognized that if this kind of relativism was accepted that it would lead to the death of
philosophy and all legitimate attempts at moral discourse. To save the philosophical enterprise,
Plato had to devise an idea of truth and goodness that was independent of individual perceptions
of truth and goodness. Thus he needed to anchor these concepts in a transcendent realm---the
world of the forms. While the Sophists, then, would maintain that there potentially could be as
many legitimate ideas of justice or beauty as there are individuals, for Plato there is Justice and
Beauty---objective and transcendent realities that have nothing to do with my individual
perceptions or opinions.

Now, consider illustrations on Plato’s Divided Line: 1st) obviously speaking, the first and major
division of the Line represents the distinction between the two worlds: the world of Being
(Intelligible world) and the world of Becoming (Visible world). 2nd) Furthermore, each of the
resulting lines, below and above, is in turn divided. And this further division results in a sort of
ladder of reality (on the metaphysical side of the Line)and a ladder of knowledge (on the
Epistemological side of the Line). Then, the first of the two sections (in the Visible world)
stands for images/shadows, and the second section stands for the sensible (actual) things of
which the first are images/shadows/likenesses. Now, let’s come to consider how the part which
stands for the Intelligible world is divided into two sections, namely Lower Forms
(mathematical forms) and Higher Forms (the unity of all Forms). Now, when we consider the
Vertical Line, as it passes through the lowest degree or forms of reality to the highest, there is
the parallel progression from the lowest degree or mode of knowledge to the highest. Going from
X to Y represents a continuous process of our intellectual enlightenment or mental progression.
Now, let us discuss each levels of the ladder of knowledge (the four states or stages of mind)
which extends from mere imagination/imagining(which grasps images) to perception(which
grasps actual or sensible things) to reason(which is a rational and deductive way of grasping the
lower forms) to understanding/intelligence(which grasps the Higher Forms in a direct and
intuitive way), as well as that of the ladder of reality.

1) Imagination/Imagining

It is the most superficial/shallow form of mental activity. It is sense experience of appearances

such as images/shadows. Images/ shadows-are the least form of reality. Here, we have a mere
images such as reflections in pools of water, photographs, paintings, memories, etc of sensible
(or actual) things/objects such as actual tables, chairs, humans, and so on. Thus, in
imagination/imagining, we accept appearances such as shadows/images as realty. For example,
we accept a mere image/shadow of actual human as real in itself. At this stage, we do not know
that it is an image, a shadow but we take it simply as real. If we knew that it was an image/a
shadow, we would not be in the stage or state of imagination/imagining. The metaphor of Plato
22 | P a g e
here is that people (hint: the prisoners in the cave) were trapped in the deepest ignorance because
they were unaware that they were seeing or perceiving shadows/images.

2) Perception/Belief

It is caused by perceiving or observing actual/sensible things themselves. The actual/sensible

things themselves (e.g. actual humans): when we perceive or see visible and tangible
things/objects, we tend to feel a strong sense of certainty. This means that there is a degree of
certainty that perception/seeing gives us but this is not absolute certainty. In connection to this,
Plato argues that Perception/seeing still constitutes only believing because sensible/visible
objects depend upon their context, not upon our perception for their many characteristics.

3) Thinking/Reason

When we move from perception/belief to thinking/reason, we move from the visible world to
the intelligible world, and from the realm of opinion to the realm of knowledge. Thinking
involves treatment of actual things as symbols, and reasoning from hypotheses/assumptions to
draw a conclusion. The stage or state of mind that Plato calls thinking is particularly
characteristic of a scientist. For a scientist, actual things are symbols of reality that can be
thought, but not only be perceived. The point here is that the scientist examines the actual things
in the visible world and suggests explanations of them in terms of hypothesis. Mathematicians:
Plato also illustrates thinking in reference to mathematicians. For example, when mathematicians
see the diagram of a triangle, they think about triangularity or triangle in itself. By looking at a
particular actual object such as triangle, mathematicians go beyond this particular thing. So, they
distinguish between the visible/actual and the intelligible triangle. In sum, thinking or reasoning
from hypotheses gives us knowledge of truth or explanations of the things in the world, but it
still bears or has certain limitation because it does not give us complete explanations of things.

4) Intelligence/Understanding:

At this level, we deal directly with the Forms (with those intelligible things such as Triangle,
Human, etc that have been abstracted or separated from the actual things.) her4e, we grasp pure
Forms without any interference from even the symbolic character of visible objects; we are
completely released from sensible or visible objects with perfect intelligence. But to have perfect
intelligence would require that we should grasp or understand the relation of everything to
everything else .i.e., we should see the unity of the whole reality. This is what we call the unity
of all Forms at intelligible world. Here, we no longer use hypotheses because they represent only
limited and isolated truths. At this level, we get a fuller explanation of things. We move towards
the unity of all Forms (the highest) through our intellectual capacity of dialectic.

According to Plato, dialectic is purely conceptual process of moving from Forms to Forms, and
eventually to the highest Form. It is a purely intellectual discipline, which does no longer rely on
the world of sense at all. It is the ability to see at once the relation or unity of all Form

23 | P a g e
2.5 Aristotle’s Metaphysics

He was born in 384 at Stagira, a Greek colonial town, and was the student of Plato. The work of
Aristotle entitled Metaphysics begins with the statement that “All men by nature desire to
know.” This means that human beings have a natural desire to know certain kinds of things. For
him, metaphysics is what Aristotle calls “first philosophy, “the investigation of “Being as Being”
or ultimate reality. It studies about being qua being and the attributes that belong to it in virtue of
its own nature. So, the study of being as being is metaphysics. Here, when we study about being
qua being we are seeking the first principles or the highest causes.

We can recall that Plato argues that reality is something else (or the world of being) other than
the world of our experience. But for Aristotle, reality is the world of our experience i.e., this
world is reality. Therefore, for Aristotle, metaphysics is the study of nature (physis) and, as
importantly, the study of ourselves rather than the study of other world as maintained by Plato.
For Aristotle, there is no other world.

What is Being? For Aristotle being is understood in terms of its primary or fundamental sense.
Accordingly, being is what something/ a thing really is or the “what” of a thing. This indicates
the substance of the thing. For example, when we say what it is, we mean or say a man/a human
being, or a horse, or a cat, or a tree, or a butterfly, and so on; but we do not say “white) or
“black) or “short” or “tall”, and so on. In this sense, we are a certain individual human being. We
are also a certain number of inches tall, but that fact is secondary and belongs to the category of
quantity. We may also be white or black, but that fact also is secondary and belongs to the
category of quality. For him, the primary category is that of substance.

Substance defined:
It is the primary essence of things.
It is that which stands alone (or independent being): this means that other things depend
upon a substance, but a substance does not depend upon them.
For instance, you would exist even if you did not have hair, but your hair could not exist without
you, and so it is not a substance. Moreover, a horse could exist even if its color did not exist
without the horse, and so on. The point here is that substances are the basic elements in the
Aristotle’s metaphysics. In this connection, the ultimate things of reality, which he calls
substances, are individual things such as people, horses, trees, butterflies, and so on. In sum,
according to Aristotle, we know a thing better when we know what it is than when we know the
color, or the size, or the posture it has.

An Essential and Accidental Properties of a Particular or Concrete Individual Things(or

Beings)
Aristotle distinguishes between essential and accidental properties of things or beings. An
essence (or an essential property) is that aspect of an individual that identifies it as a particular
individual. For example it is part of the essence of Socrates that he is a human being, that he

24 | P a g e
lived in the 4th c B.C., and that he was wise as well as he is mortal. Thus a substance can be
defined in terms of what is essential. An accident (or an accidental property) is simply a
secondary property which does not determine the nature of an individual thing. For example, to
say that a person has red hair is to describe something accidental about him or her since to be a
human it is not essential or necessary that one must have red hair-or even any hair for that
matter. Thus, a substance cannot be defined in terms of what is accidental.

The Four Causes by Aristotle

Aristotle lists four different kinds of cause, all of which together explain why a thing is as it is at
any given time. These are: 1) The Material cause: this is the matter that makes a thing up. It is
the matter or “stuff” a thing is made out of. Example: a chair is made out of wood. 2) The
formal cause: it is the essence or form of a thing/ what a thing is. Example: a chair itself. 3) The
Efficient cause: it is what a thing is made by/brought by into being or existence. Example: a
carpenter. 4) The final cause: it is the purpose of a thing, its teleos, its ends for which it is made.
Example: the purpose of a chair is to sit on it.

25 | P a g e