Sophie’s World
Jostien Gaarder
Reviews:
More praise
for the international bestseller that has become “Europe’s oddball literary sensation of the decade”
(New York
Newsday)
“A page-turner.”
—Entertainment Weekly
“First, think of a beginner’s guide to philosophy,
written by a schoolteacher ... Next,
imagine a fantasy novel— something like a modern-day version of Through the Looking Glass. Meld these
disparate genres, and what do you get? Well, what you get is an improbable international bestseller ... a runaway
hit... [a] tour deforce.”
—Time
“Compelling.” —Los Angeles Times
“Its depth of learning, its
intelligence and its totally
original conception give it enormous magnetic appeal ... To be fully human, and to feel our continuity with 3,000 years of philosophical
inquiry, we need to put ourselves in
Sophie’s world.” —Boston Sunday Globe
“Involving and often humorous.” —USA Today
“In the adroit hands of Jostein Gaarder, the whole sweep of three millennia of Western philosophy is rendered as
lively as a gossip column ... Literary sorcery of the first rank.” —Fort Worth
Star-Telegram
“A comprehensive
history of Western philosophy as recounted to a 14-year-old Norwegian schoolgirl... The book will serve as a first-rate introduction to anyone who never took an introductory philosophy
course, and as a pleasant refresher
for those who have and have forgotten most
of it... [Sophie’s mother] is a marvelous comic foil.” —Newsweek
“Terrifically entertaining and imaginative ... I’ll
read Sophie’s World again.” — Daily Mail
“What is admirable
in the novel is the utter
unpretentious-ness of the philosophical lessons, the plain and workmanlike prose which manages to deliver Western philosophy in accounts that are crystal clear. It is heartening to know that a
book subtitled
“’A Novel About the History of Philosophy’ was
not only a bestseller in France, but for a while Europe’s hottest novel.”
—The Washington
Post Book World
“A rare bird indeed, a short history of Western philosophical thought from Socrates to Sartre, coyly
embedded in the
wrapping of a suspense novel.” —New York Newsday
“A simply wonderful, irresistible book ... a cross between Bertrand Russell’s
History of
Western Philosophy and Alice in Wonderland.”
—The Daily Telegraph
“An exciting
trek into, the realm of thought, from
the ancient philosophers’
school of
Athens to the Konigsberg of Kant...
and a brilliant success.” -Der
Spiegel
“Intelligently written... an enchanting way
to learn philosophy.” —Baton
Rouge Magazine
“Just as remarkable for its playful premise as it is for its accessibility ...
The essential charm of Sophie’s World
lies in the innocent curiosity of the young
character, and the clever narrative structure Gaarder designed to pique it.”
—Columbus
Dispatch
“An extraordinary
writer.” —Madeleine L’Engle
Sophie’s World
A Novel About the History of Philosophy
JOSTEIN GAARDER Translated by Paulette Miller
BERKLEY
BOOKS, NEW YORK
If you purchased this book without a cover,
you should be aware that this book
is stolen property. It was reported as “unsold and destroyed” to the publisher, and neither the author nor the publisher
has received any payment for this
“stripped book.”
SOPHIE’S
WORLD
A Berkley
Book / published by arrangement with
Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
Inc.
PRINTING HISTORY
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc., edition published 1994 Berkley edition / March
1996 All
rights reserved.
Originally published in Norwegian under the title Sofies verden, copyright
©
1991 by
H. Aschehoug & Co. (W. Nygaard),
Oslo.
Translation copyright © 1994 by
Paulette Moller.
This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by mimeograph or any other means, without permission. For information address: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux,
Inc., 19 Union Square West, New York, New York 10003.
The Putnam Berkley World Wide
Web site address is http://www.berkley.com
ISBN: 0-425-15225-1
BERKLEY®
Berkley
Books are published by The Berkley Publishing Group, 200 Madison
Avenue, New
York, New York 10016.
BERKLEY
and the “B” design are trademarks
belonging to Berkley Publishing
Corporation.
PRINTED
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 10
Acknowledgments
This book would not have been possible without
the support and encouragement of Siri
Dan-nevig. Thanks are also due to Maiken
Ims for reading the manuscript and making useful comments, and to Trond Berg Eriksen for his
trenchant observations and knowledgeable support through the years.
J.G.
He who cannot draw on three thousand years Is
living from hand to mouth GOETHE
THE GARDEN OF EDEN
… at some
point something must have come from nothing …
Sophie Amundsen
was on her way home from school.
She had walked the first part of the way
with Joanna. They had been discussing
robots. Joanna thought the hu- man
brain was like an advanced computer. Sophie
was not certain she agreed. Surely a person was more than a piece of hardware?
When they
got to the supermarket they went their separate ways. Sophie lived
on the outskirts of a sprawling suburb and had almost twice as far
to school as Joanna. There were no other houses beyond her garden, which made it seem as if her house
lay at the end of the world. This was where the woods began.
She turned the corner into Clover Close. At the end of the road there was a sharp
bend, known as Captain’s Bend. People seldom went that way except on the weekend.
It was early May. In some of the gardens the fruit
trees were encircled with dense
clusters of daffodils. The birches
were already in pale green leaf.
It was extraordinary how everything burst
forth at this time of year! What
made this great mass of green vegetation come welling up from
the dead earth as soon as it got warm
and the last traces of snow disappeared?
As Sophie opened her garden gate, she looked
in the mailbox. There was usually a
lot of junk mail and a few big envelopes for her mother, a pile to dump on the kitchen table before she went up
to her room to start her homework.
From time to time
there would be a few letters from the bank for her father, but then he was
not a normal father. Sophie’s father
was the captain of a big oil tanker, and was away for most of the year. During
the few weeks at a time when he was at home, he would shuffle around the house making it nice and cozy for Sophie and her mother. But when he
was at sea he could seem very
distant.
There was only one letter in the mailbox—and it was for Sophie. The white
envelope read: “Sophie
Amundsen, 3 Clover Close.”
That was all; it did not say who it
was from. There was no stamp on it either.
As soon as Sophie had closed the gate behind her she opened the envelope. It
contained only a slip of paper no bigger than the envelope. It read: Who are you?
Nothing else, only the three words, written by
hand, and followed by a large question mark.
She looked at the envelope again. The letter
was definitely for her. Who could
have dropped it in the mailbox?
Sophie let herself quickly into the red house. As always, her cat Sherekan managed to slink out of the bushes, jump onto
the front step, and slip in through the door before she closed it behind her.
Whenever Sophie’s mother
was in a bad mood, she would call the house they lived in a
menagerie. A menagerie was a collection of animals. Sophie certainly had one and
was quite happy with it. It had begun
with the three goldfish, Goldtop, Red Ridinghood, and Black Jack. Next
she got two budgerigars called Smitt
and Smule, then Govinda the tortoise, and finally the marmalade cat Sherekan. They had all been given to her to make up for the fact that her mother
never got home from work until late in the afternoon and her
father was away so much, sailing all over the world.
Sophie
slung her schoolbag on the floor and
put a bowl of cat food out for
Sherekan. Then she sat down on a kitchen stool with
the mysterious letter in her hand.
Who are
you?
She had no idea. She was Sophie Amundsen, of
course, but who was that? She
had not
really figured that out—yet.
What if she had been given a different name? Anne
Knutsen, for instance. Would she then have been someone else?
She suddenly remembered
that Dad had originally wanted her to be called Lillemor. Sophie tried to imagine
herself shaking hands and introducing
herself as Lillemor Amundsen, but it seemed
all wrong. It was someone else who kept introducing herself.
She jumped
up and went into the bathroom with the strange letter in her hand. She
stood in front of the mirror and stared into her own eyes.
“I am Sophie Amundsen,”
she said.
The girl in the mirror did not react
with as much as a twitch. Whatever
Sophie did, she did exactly the same.
Sophie tried to beat her reflection to it with a
lightning movement but the other girl
was just as fast.
“Who are you?” Sophie asked.
She received no response to this either, but felt a momentary
confusion as to whether it was she or her reflection who had asked the
question.
Sophie pressed
her index finger to the nose in the mirror and said, “You are
me.”
you.”
As she got no answer to this, she turned the sentence around and said, “I am
Sophie Amundsen was often
dissatisfied with her appearance. She
was
frequently told that she had beautiful almond-shaped
eyes, but that was probably just something
people said because her nose was
too small and her mouth was a bit too big. And her ears were much too close to her eyes. Worst
of all was her straight hair, which it was impossible
to do anything with. Sometimes her father would stroke her hair and
call her “the girl with the flaxen
hair,” after a piece of
music by Claude Debussy. It was all
right for him, he was not condemned to living with this straight dark
hair. Neither mousse nor styling gel
had the slightest effect on Sophie’s hair. Sometimes
she thought she was so ugly that she
wondered if she was malformed
at birth. Her mother always went on
about her difficult labor. But was
that really what determined how you
looked?
Wasn’t it odd that she didn’t know who she was?
And wasn’t it unreasonable that she hadn’t been allowed to have any say in what
she would look like? Her looks had
just been dumped on her. She could
choose her own friends, but she certainly hadn’t chosen herself. She had not even chosen to be a human being.
What was
a human being?
Sophie
looked up at the girl in the mirror again.
“I think I’ll go upstairs and do my biology
homework,” she said, almost apologetically. Once she was out in the hall, she thought,
No, I’d rather go out in the garden.
“Kitty,
kitty, kitty!”
Sophie chased
the cat out onto the doorstep and
closed the front door behind
her.
As she stood outside on the gravel path with the mysterious letter
in her hand,
the strangest
feeling came over her. She felt like a doll that had suddenly been brought
to life by the wave of a magic wand.
Wasn’t it extraordinary to be in the world right now, wandering around in a
wonderful adventure!
Sherekan sprang
lightly across the gravel and slid into a dense clump of red- currant
bushes. A live cat, vibrant with energy
from its white
whiskers to the
twitching tail at the end of its sleek body. It was here in the garden too, but hardly aware of it in
the same way as Sophie.
As Sophie started to think about being alive, she began to realize that she would not be alive forever. I am in the
world now, she thought, but one day
I shall be gone.
Was there a life after
death? This was another question the cat was blissfully unaware of.
It was not long since Sophie’s grandmother
had died. For more than six months
Sophie had
missed
her every single day. How unfair that life
had to end!
Sophie stood on the gravel path, thinking. She tried to think extra hard about being
alive so as to forget that she would not
be alive forever. But it was impossible. As soon as she concentrated on being
alive now, the thought of dying also came
into her mind. The same thing
happened the other way around: only by conjuring up an intense feeling of one
day being dead could she appreciate how terribly good it was to be alive. It was like two sides of a coin that
she kept turning over and over. And
the bigger and clearer one side of
the coin became, the bigger and clearer
the other side became too.
You can’t experience being alive without realizing that you have to die, she thought. But it’s
just as impossible to realize you have
to die without thinking how incredibly amazing it is to be alive.
Sophie remembered
Granny saying something like that the day the doctor told her
she was ill. “I never realized how rich life was until now,” she said.
How tragic that most people had to get ill before they understood what a gift it
was to be alive. Or else they had to find a mysterious
letter in the mailbox!
Perhaps she should go and see if any more letters had arrived. Sophie hurried to
the gate and looked inside the green mailbox.
She was startled to find that it contained another white envelope, exactly like
the first. But the mailbox had definitely been empty when she took the first envelope! This envelope had her name on it as well.
She tore
it open and fished out a note the same size as the first one.
Where does
the world come from? it said.
I don’t know, Sophie thought. Surely nobody really knows. And yet—Sophie thought it was a fair
question. For the first time in her
life she felt it wasn’t right to live in the world
without at least inquiring where it came
from.
The mysterious
letters had made Sophie’s head spin.
She decided to go and sit in the den.
The den was Sophie’s top secret hiding
place. It was where she went when she was terribly angry, terribly miserable, or terribly happy. Today she was
simply con- fused.
* * *
The red house was surrounded by a large garden with lots of flowerbeds, fruit bushes,
fruit trees of different kinds, a spacious lawn with a glider and a little gazebo that Granddad had built for Granny
when she lost their first child a few weeks after it was born. The child’s name was Marie. On her gravestone were the words: “Little Marie to us came, greeted us, and left again.”
Down in a corner of the garden behind all the
raspberry bushes was a dense thicket where neither flowers nor berries would grow. Actually, it was an old hedge
that had once marked the boundary to the woods, but
because nobody had trimmed it for the
last twenty years it had grown into a
tangled and impenetrable mass. Granny used to say the hedge made
it harder for the foxes to take the chickens during the war,
when the chickens had free range of the garden.
To everyone but Sophie, the old hedge was
just as useless as the rabbit hutches at the other end of the garden. But that was only because they hadn’t discovered Sophie’s secret.
Sophie had known about the little hole in the hedge for as long as she
could remember. When she crawled
through it she came into a large
cavity between the bushes. It was
like a little house. She knew nobody would find her there.
Clutching the two envelopes in her hand, Sophie ran
through the garden, crouched down on all fours, and wormed her way through the
hedge. The den was almost high enough
for her to stand upright, but today she sat down on a clump of gnarled roots. From there she could look out through tiny peepholes between the twigs and leaves.
Although none of the holes was
bigger than a small coin, she had a
good view of the whole garden. When she was little she used to think it was fun to watch her mother and father searching for her among
the trees.
Sophie had always thought the garden was a world
of its own. Each time she heard about the Garden of Eden
in the Bible it reminded her of sitting here in the
den, surveying her own little
paradise.
Where does
the world come from?
She hadn’t the faintest idea. Sophie knew that the world was only a small planet in space. But where did space come from?
It was possible that space had always existed, in which case she would not also
need to figure out where it came
from. But could anything have always
existed? Something deep down inside
her protested at the idea. Surely everything that exists must have had a beginning? So space must sometime
have been created out of some- thing
else.
But if space had come from something
else, then that something else
must also have come from something. Sophie felt she was only deferring
the problem. At some point, something must have come from nothing. But was that possible? Wasn’t
that just as impossible as the idea that
the world had always existed?
They had learned at school that God created the
world. Sophie tried to console herself with the thought that this was probably the best solution to the whole problem. But then she started to think again. She could
accept that God had created space, but what about God himself? Had
he created himself out of nothing? Again there was something deep down inside her that protested. Even though God could create all kinds of
things, he could hardly create himself before he had a “self” to create
with.
So there
was only one possibility left: God
had always existed. But she had already rejected that possibility! Everything that existed had to have a beginning.
Oh, drat!
She opened
the two envelopes again.
Who are
you?
Where does
the world come from?
What annoying questions! And anyway where did the letters come from? That was just as mysterious, almost.
Who had jolted Sophie out of her everyday existence and suddenly brought her face
to face with the great riddles of the universe?
For the third time Sophie went to the mailbox.
The mailman had just delivered
the day’s mail. Sophie fished out a
bulky pile of junk mail, periodicals, and a couple of letters
for her mother. There was also a
postcard of a tropical beach. She turned the
card over.
It had a Norwegian stamp on it and was postmarked “UN Battalion.” Could it be from Dad? But wasn’t he in
a completely
different place? It wasn’t his
handwriting either.
Sophie felt her pulse quicken a little as she saw who the postcard was addressed
to: “Hilde Moller Knag, c/o Sophie Amundsen, 3 Clover Close ...” The rest of the
address was correct. The card read:
Dear Hilde, Happy 15th birthday! As I’m sure you’ll understand, I want to give you
a present that will help you grow. Forgive me for sending the card c/o Sophie. It was
the easiest way. Love from Dad.
Sophie raced back to the house and into the kitchen. Her mind was in a turmoil. Who was this “Hilde,” whose fifteenth birthday was just a month
before her own?
Sophie got out the telephone book. There were a lot of people called Moller, and
quite a few called Knag. But there was nobody in the entire directory called
Moller Knag.
She examined
the mysterious card again. It
certainly seemed genuine enough; it had a stamp and a postmark.
Why would a father send a birthday card to Sophie’s address when it was quite
obviously intended to go somewhere else? What kind of father would cheat his own
daughter of a birthday card by purposely sending it astray? How could it be
“the easiest way”? And above all, how
was she supposed to trace this Hilde person?
So now Sophie had another problem to worry
about. She tried to get her
thoughts in order:
This afternoon,
in the space of two short hours, she had been presented with three
problems. The first problem was
who had put the two white envelopes in her mailbox.
The second was the difficult questions
these letters contained. The third problem was who Hilde Moller Knag could be, and why Sophie had been sent her
birthday card. She was sure that the three problems were
interconnected in some way. They had to be, because until today she had lived a perfectly
ordinary life.
The Top
Hat
… the
only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder...
Sophie was sure she would hear from the anonymous letter writer again. She decided not to tell
anyone about the letters for the time being.
At school she had trouble concentrating on
what the teachers said. They seemed
to talk only about unimportant
things. Why couldn’t they talk about
what a human being is—or about what
the world is and how it came into
being?
For the first time she began to feel
that at school as well as everywhere
else people were only concerned with trivialities.
There were major problems that needed to be solved.
Did anybody have answers to these questions? Sophie felt that thinking about them was more important than memorizing irregular verbs.
When the bell rang after the last class, she left the school so fast that Joanna had to
run to catch up with her.
After a
while Joanna said, “Do you want to
play cards this evening?” Sophie
shrugged her shoulders.
“I’m not
that interested in card games any more.” Joanna looked surprised.
“You’re
not? Let’s play badminton then.”
Sophie
stared down at the pavement—then
up at her friend.
“I don’t
think I’m that interested in badminton either.” “You’re kidding!”
Sophie
noticed the touch of bitterness in Joanna’s
tone. “Do you mind telling me what’s suddenly so important?”
Sophie just shook her head. “It’s ... it’s a secret.”
“Yuck!
You’re probably in love!”
The two girls walked on for a while without
saying anything. When they got to the
soccer field Joanna said, “I’m going
across the field.”
Across the field! It was the quickest way
for Joanna, but she only went that way when she had to hurry home in time
for visitors or a dental appointment.
Sophie regretted having been mean to her. But what else could she have said? That she had suddenly become so engrossed
in who she was and where the world came
from that she had no time to play badminton? Would Joanna have understood?
Why was it so difficult to be absorbed in the most
vital and, in a way, the most natural of all questions?
She felt her heart beating faster as she opened the mailbox. At first she found
only a letter from the bank and some big brown
envelopes for her mother. Darn!
Sophie had been looking forward to getting
another letter from the unknown sender.
As she closed the gate behind her she noticed
her own name on one of the big envelopes. Turning
it over, she saw written on the back:
“Course in Philosophy. Handle with care.”
Sophie ran up the gravel path and flung her
schoolbag onto the step. Stuffing the other letters under the doormat, she ran around into the back garden and sought refuge in the
den. This was the only place
to open the big letter.
Sherekan came
jumping after her but Sophie had to
put up with that. She knew the cat would not give her away.
Inside the envelope there were three typewritten pages held together with a
paper clip. Sophie began to read.
WHAT IS
PHILOSOPHY?
Dear Sophie,
Lots of people have hobbies. Some people collect old coins or foreign
stamps, some do needlework, others spend most of their spare time on a particular sport.
A
lot of people enjoy reading.
But reading tastes differ widely. Some people only read newspapers or comics, some like
reading novels, while others prefer books on astronomy, wildlife, or technological discoveries.
If
I happen to be interested in horses or precious stones, I cannot expect everyone else to share my enthusiasm. If I watch all the sports
programs on TV with great pleasure, I must put up with the fact that other people find
sports boring.
Is
there nothing that interests us all? Is there nothing that concerns
everyone—no matter who they are or
where they live in the world? Yes,
dear Sophie, there are questions that certainly should interest everyone. They are
precisely the questions this course is about.
What is the most important thing in
life? If we ask someone
living on the edge
of starvation, the answer is food.
If we ask someone dying of cold, the answer is warmth. If we put the same
question to someone who feels lonely and isolated, the answer will probably be the company of other people.
But when these basic needs have been
satisfied—will there still be
something that
everybody needs? Philosophers think so. They believe that man cannot live by bread alone. Of course
everyone needs food. And everyone needs love and care. But there is
something else—apart from that—
which everyone needs, and that is to figure out who we are and why we are here.
Being interested in why we are here is not a “casual” interest like
collecting stamps. People who ask
such questions are taking part in a
debate that has gone on as long as man has lived
on this planet. How the universe, the earth, and life came into being is
a bigger and more important question than who won the most gold medals in the last Olympics.
The
best way of approaching philosophy is to ask a few philosophical
questions:
How
was the world created? Is there any will or meaning
behind what happens? Is there a life after death? How can we
answer these questions? And most important, how ought we to live? People have been asking these questions throughout the ages. We know of no culture which has not concerned itself with what man is and where the world came from.
Basically there are not many
philosophical questions to ask. We have
already asked some of the most important ones. But history presents
us with many different
answers to each question.
So it is easier to ask philosophical questions than to answer them.
Today as well each individual has to
discover his own answer to these
same questions. You cannot find out whether there is a God or whether there is life after death by
looking in an encyclopedia. Nor does the encyclopedia tell us how we ought to live. However, reading
what other people have
believed can help us formulate our own view of life.
Philosophers’ search for the truth resembles a detective story. Some
think Andersen was the murderer, others think it was Nielsen or Jensen. The
police are sometimes able to solve a real
crime. But it is equally
possible that they never get
to the bottom of it, although there is a solution somewhere. So even if it is
difficult to answer a question, there may be one—and only one— right answer.
Either there is a kind of existence after death—or there is not.
A lot of age-old
enigmas have now been explained by science. What the
dark side of the moon looks like was
once shrouded in mystery. It was not the
kind of thing that could be solved by
discussion, it was left to the imagination
of the individual. But today we know exactly what the dark side of the moon
looks like, and no one can
“believe” any longer in the Man in the Moon, or that
the moon is made of green
cheese.
A Greek philosopher who lived more
than two thousand years ago believed that philosophy had its origin in man’s sense of wonder. Man
thought it was so astonishing to be alive that
philosophical questions arose of
their
own
accord.
It is like
watching a magic trick. We cannot understand how it is done.
So we ask: how can the magician
change a couple
of white silk scarves into a
live rabbit?
A
lot of people experience the world with
the same incredulity as when a magician suddenly pulls a rabbit out of a hat which has just been shown to them empty.
In
the case of the rabbit, we know the magician
has tricked us. What we would like to know is just how he did it. But when it comes to the world it’s
somewhat different. We know that the world is not all sleight of hand and
deception because here we are in it, we are part of it. Actually,
we are the white rabbit being
pulled out of the hat. The only
difference between us and the white rabbit is that the rabbit does not realize it is taking part in a magic
trick. Unlike us. We feel we are part of
something mysterious and we would like to know how it all works.
P.S. As far as the white rabbit is concerned, it might be better to
compare it with the whole universe. We who live here are microscopic
insects existing deep down in the rabbit’s fur. But philosophers are always trying to
climb up the fine hairs of the fur in order to stare right into the magician’s eyes.
Are you
still there, Sophie? To be continued . . .
Sophie was completely
exhausted. Still there? She
could not even remember if she had taken the time to breathe while she read.
Who had brought this letter? It couldn’t be the same person who had sent the birthday card to Hilde Moller Knag because that
card had both a stamp and a post- mark. The brown envelope had been delivered by hand to the mailbox exactly like the two white ones.
Sophie looked at her watch. It was a quarter to three. Her mother would not be home
from work for over two hours.
Sophie crawled
out into the garden again and ran to the mailbox.
Perhaps there was another letter.
She found one more brown envelope with her
name on it. This time she looked all around but there was
nobody in sight. Sophie ran to the
edge of the woods and looked down the path.
No one was there. Suddenly she thought she heard a twig snap deep in the woods.
But she was not completely sure, and
anyway it would be pointless to chase after someone
who was determined to get away.
Sophie let herself into the house. She ran
upstairs to her room and took out a
big cookie tin full of pretty stones. She emptied
the stones onto the floor and put both
large envelopes into the tin. Then she hurried
out into the garden again, holding the tin securely with both hands. Before she went she put some food out for Sherekan.
“Kitty,
kitty, kitty!”
Once back in the den she opened the second
brown envelope and drew out the new typewritten pages. She began to read.
A STRANGE CREATURE
Hello again! As you see, this short course in philosophy will come in
handy-sized portions. Here are a few more introductory remarks:
Did
I say that the only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder? If I did not, I say it now: THE ONLY THING WE REQUIRE TO BE GOOD PHILOSOPHERS IS THE FACULTY OF WONDER.
Babies have this faculty. That is not surprising. After a few short months in
the womb they slip out into a brand-new reality. But as they grow up the
faculty of wonder seems to diminish.
Why is this? Do you know?
If a
newborn baby could talk, it would probably say something about
what an extraordinary world it had come into. We see
how it looks around and reaches out in curiosity to everything it sees.
As words are gradually acquired,
the child looks up and says “Bow-wow”
every time it sees
a dog. It jumps up and down in its stroller,
waving its arms:
“Bow-wow! Bow-wow!” We who are older and wiser may feel
somewhat exhausted by the child’s
enthusiasm. “All right, all right,
it’s a bow-wow,” we say, unimpressed. “Please
sit still.” We are
not enthralled. We have seen a dog before.
This rapturous performance may repeat itself hundreds
of times before the child learns to pass a dog without going crazy. Or an elephant,
or a hippopotamus. But long before the child learns to talk properly—and Ion before it learns to think philosophically—the world we have become a habit.
A pity, if you ask me.
My
concern is that you do not grow up to be one of those people who
take the world for granted,
Sophie dear. So just to make sure, we are going to do a couple of experiments in thought before we begin on the course itself.
Imagine that one day you are out for a walk in the woods. Suddenly you see a small spaceship
on the path in front of you. A tiny
Martian climbs out of the spaceship and stands on the ground looking up at you
. . .
What would you think? Never mind, it’s not important. But have you ever
given any thought to the fact that
you are a Martian yourself?
It
is obviously unlikely that you will ever stumble upon a creature
from another planet. We do not even know that there is life on other planets.
But you might stumble
upon yourself one day. You might suddenly
stop short and see
yourself in a completely new light.
On just such a walk in the woods.
I am an
extraordinary being, you think. I am
a mysterious creature. You
feel as if you are waking from an enchanted slumber.
Who am I?
you ask. You know
that you are stumbling around on a planet in the universe. But what is the universe?
If you discover yourself
in this manner you will have discovered
something as mysterious as the Martian
we just mentioned. You will not only have seen a being from outer space. You will feel deep down that you are
yourself an extraordinary being.
Do you follow me, Sophie?
Let’s do another
experiment in thought: One morning, Mom, Dad, and little
Thomas, aged two or three, are
having breakfast in the kitchen.
After a while Mom gets up and goes over to
the kitchen sink, and Dad—yes,
Dad—flies up and floats around under the ceiling while Thomas sits watching. What do you think Thomas says? Perhaps he points up at his father and says: “Daddy’s
flying!” Thomas will certainly be astonished, but
then he very often is. Dad does so many strange things that this business of a
little flight over the breakfast table makes no
difference to him. Every day Dad shaves
with a funny machine, sometimes he
climbs onto the roof and turns the TV aerial—or
else he sticks his head under the hood of the car and comes up black in the face.
Now
it’s Mom’s turn. She hears what Thomas says and turns around abruptly.
How do you think she reacts to the
sight of Dad floating nonchalantly over the kitchen
table?
She
drops the jam jar on the floor and screams
with fright. She may
even need medical attention once Dad has returned
respectably to his chair.
(He should have learned better table manners
by now!) Why do you think Thomas and his mother react so differently?
It
all has to do with habit. (Note this!) Mom has learned that people
cannot fly. Thomas has not. He still isn’t certain what you can and cannot do in this world.
But
what about the world itself, Sophie? Do you think it can do what it
does? The world is also
floating in space.
Sadly it is not only the force of gravity we get used to as we grow up. The world itself becomes
a habit in no time at
all. It seems as if in the process
of growing up we lose the ability
to wonder about the world. And in doing so,
we lose something central—something philosophers try to restore. For somewhere inside ourselves, something tells us that life is a huge mystery.
This is something we once experienced,
long before we learned to think the thought.
To
be more precise: Although philosophical questions concern
us all, we do not all become philosophers. For various reasons
most people get so
caught up in everyday affairs that their astonishment
at the world gets pushed into the background. (They crawl deep into the
rabbit’s fur, snuggle down comfortably, and stay there for the rest of their
lives.)
To
children, the world and everything in
it is new, something that gives
rise to astonishment. It is not like that for adults.
Most adults accept the world as a matter of course.
This is precisely where philosophers are a notable
exception. A philosopher never gets quite used to the world. To him or her, the world continues to seem a bit unreasonable—bewildering, even enigmatic.
Philosophers and small children thus have an important faculty in common. You
might say that throughout his life a philosopher remains as thin-skinned as a
child.
So
now you must choose, Sophie.
Are you a child who has not yet become
world-weary? Or are you a philosopher who will vow never to become so?
If you just shake your head, not recognizing yourself as either a child or a philosopher, then you have gotten so used to the world that it no
longer astonishes you. Watch out! You are on thin ice. And this is why you are receiving this course in philosophy, just in case. I will not allow you, of all people, to join the ranks of the apathetic and the indifferent. I want you to
have an inquiring mind.
The whole course is free of charge, so you get no money back if you do not
complete it. If you choose to break off
the course you are free to do so. In that case you must leave a message
for me in the mailbox. A live
frog would be eminently suitable. Something
green, at least, otherwise the mailman
might get scared.
To summarize
briefly: A white rabbit is pulled
out of a top hat. Because it is an extremely
large rabbit, the trick takes
many billions of years. All mortals are born at the very tip of the rabbit’s fine hairs, where they
are in a position to wonder at the impossibility of the trick. But as they grow
older they work themselves ever deeper into the fur. And there they stay. They become so comfortable they never risk crawling back up the fragile
hairs again. Only philosophers embark on this perilous
expedition to the outermost reaches of language and existence. Some of them fall off, but others cling on
desperately and yell at the people nestling deep in the snug softness, stuffing themselves with delicious
food and drink.
“Ladies and gentlemen,” they yell, “we are floating in space!” But none of
the people down there care.
“What a bunch of troublemakers!” they say. And they keep on chatting:
Would you pass the butter, please? How much have our stocks risen
today? What is the price of tomatoes? Have you heard that Princess Di is expecting again?
When Sophie’s mother
got home later that afternoon, Sophie
was practically in shock. The tin containing the letters from the mysterious philosopher was safely hid- den
in the den. Sophie had tried to start
her homework but could only
sit thinking about what she had read.
She had never thought so hard before! She was
no longer a child—but she wasn’t really grown up either. Sophie realized that she had already begun to crawl down into the cozy
rabbit’s fur, the very same rabbit that had been pulled from the top hat of the universe. But the
philosopher had stopped her. He—or
was it a she?—had grabbed her by the
back of the neck and pulled her up
again to the tip of the fur where she had played
as a child. And there, on the outermost tips of the fine hairs, she was
once again seeing the world as if for the very first time.
The philosopher had rescued her. No doubt about it. The unknown letter
writer had saved her from the triviality of everyday existence.
When Mom got
home at five o’clock, Sophie dragged her into the living room and pushed her into an armchair.
“Mom—don’t
you think it’s astonishing to be alive?” she began.
Her mother
was so surprised that she didn’t
answer at first. Sophie was usually
doing her homework when she got home.
“I suppose
I do—sometimes,” she said.
“Sometimes? Yes, but—don’t you think it’s astonishing that the world exists at
all?”
“Now look, Sophie. Stop talking like that.”
“Why? Perhaps you think the world is quite
normal?” “Well, isn’t it? More or less, anyway.”
Sophie saw that the philosopher was right. Grownups took the world for
granted.
They had let themselves be
lulled into the enchanted sleep of
their humdrum existence once
and for all.
“You’ve
just grown so used to the world that nothing surprises you any more.” “What
on earth are you talking about?”
“I’m talking about you getting so used to
everything. Totally dim, in other
words.”
“I will
not be spoken to like that, Sophie!”
“All right, I’ll put it another way. You’ve made
yourself comfortable deep down in the fur of a white rabbit that is being pulled out of the universe’s top hat right now. And in a minute
you’ll put the potatoes on. Then
you’ll read the paper and after half
an hour’s
nap you’ll watch the news on TV!”
An anxious expression came over her mother’s face. She did indeed go into the kitchen and put the potatoes on. After a while she came
back into the living room, and this
time it was she who pushed Sophie
into an armchair.
“There’s something
I must talk to you about,” she began. Sophie could tell by her voice that it
was something serious.
“You haven’t
gotten yourself mixed up with drugs, have you, dear?”
Sophie was just about to laugh, but she
understood why the question was being brought up now.
“Are you
nuts?” she said. “That only makes you duller’.”
No more was
said that evening about either drugs or white rabbits.
The Myths
... a
precarious balance between the forces of good and evil …
There was no letter for Sophie the next morning. All through the interminable day at school she was bored stiff.
She took care to be extra nice to
Joanna during the breaks. On the way home they talked about going camping
as soon as the woods were dry enough.
After what seemed
an eternity she was once again at
the mailbox. First she opened a
letter postmarked in Mexico. It was
from her father. He wrote about how much he was longing for home and how for the first time he had managed
to beat the Chief Officer at chess. Apart from
that he had almost finished the pile of books he had brought aboard with
him after his winter leave.
And then, there it was—a brown envelope with
her name on it! Leaving her schoolbag
and the rest of the mail in the
house, Sophie ran to the den. She
pulled out the new typewritten pages
and began to read:
THE MYTHOLOGICAL WORLD PICTURE
Hello there, Sophie! We have a lot
to do, so we’ll get started without delay.
By
philosophy we mean the completely new way of thinking
that evolved in Greece about
six hundred years before the birth of Christ. Until that time people had found answers
to all their questions in various religions. These religious explanations were handed down from generation to generation in the form of myths. A myth is a story about
the gods which sets out to explain
why life is as it is.
Over the millennia a wild profusion of mythological explanations of philosophical questions spread across the
world. The Greek philosophers attempted to prove that these explanations were not to be trusted.
In
order to understand how the early philosophers thought,
we have to understand what it was like to have a mythological picture
of the world. We can take some
Nordic myths as examples. (There is no need to carry coals to Newcastle.)
You
have probably heard of Thor and his hammer. Before Christianity came
to Norway, people believed that Thor rode across the sky in a chariot drawn by two goats. When he swung his hammer it made thunder
and lightning. The word “thunder” in Norwegian—“Thor-d0n”—means Thor’s roar.
In Swedish, the word for thunder is “aska,” originally “as-aka,” which means “god’s journey” over the heavens.
When there is thunder
and lightning there is also rain, which was vital to
the Viking farmers. So Thor was worshipped as the god of fertility.
The
mythological explanation for rain was therefore that Thor was swinging his hammer. And when it
rained the corn germinated and
thrived in the fields.
How the plants of the field could grow and yield crops was not understood. But it was clearly somehow
connected with the rain. And since everybody believed that the rain had
something to do with Thor, he was one
of the most important of the
Norse gods.
There was another reason why Thor was important, a reason related
to the entire world order.
The
Vikings believed that the inhabited world was an island under constant threat from outside dangers. They called this part of the world Midgard, which means the kingdom in the middle. Within Midgard
lay Asgard, the domain of the
gods.
Outside Midgard was the kingdom of Utgard,
the domain of the treacherous giants, who resorted to all kinds of cunning tricks to try and
destroy the world. Evil monsters like these are often referred
to as the “forces of chaos.”
Not only in Norse mythology but in almost all other cultures, people found that there was a precarious balance between the forces of
good and evil.
One
of the ways in which the giants
could destroy Midgard was by abducting Freyja,
the goddess of fertility. If they could do this,
nothing would grow in the
fields and the women would no longer have children.
So it was vital to hold these giants in check.
Thor was a central
figure in this battle with the giants.
His hammer could do
more than make rain; it was a key weapon in the struggle
against the dangerous forces of chaos. It gave him almost
unlimited power. For example,
he could hurl it at the giants and slay them.
And he never had to worry about losing it because it always came back
to him, just like a boomerang.
This was the mythological explanation for how
the balance of nature was maintained and why there was a constant struggle
between good and evil.
And this was precisely the kind of explanation
that the philosophers rejected.
But it was not a question of explanations alone.
Mortals could not just sit idly by and wait for
the gods to intervene while catastrophes such as drought or plague loomed. They had to act for
themselves in the struggle against evil. This they did by performing various
religious ceremonies, or rites.
The
most significant religious ceremony in Norse times was the offering. Making an offering to a god had
the effect of increasing that god’s power. For example, mortals had to make offerings to the gods to give them the strength to conquer the forces of chaos.
They could do this by sacrificing an animal to the god. The offering to Thor was
usually a goat. Offerings to Odin sometimes took the form of human sacrifices.
The
myth that is best known in the
Nordic countries comes from the Eddie poem “The Lay of Thrym.” It tells how Thor, rising from sleep, finds that
his hammer is gone. This makes him so angry that his hands tremble and his
beard shakes. Accompanied by his
henchman Loki he goes to Freyja to ask
if Loki may borrow her wings so that he can fly to Jotunheim, the land of the
giants, and find out if they are the ones who have stolen Thor’s hammer.
At
Jotunheim Loki meets Thrym, the king of the giants, who sure enough begins to boast that he has hidden the hammer seven leagues under the earth.
And he adds that the gods will not get the hammer back until Thrym is
given Freyja as his bride.
Can
you picture it, Sophie?
Suddenly the good gods find themselves in the midst of a full-blown hostage
incident. The giants have seized the gods’ most vital defensive weapon.
This is an utterly unacceptable situation. As long as the giants have Thor’s hammer,
they have total control over the world of gods and mortals. In exchange
for the hammer they are demanding Freyja.
But this is equally unacceptable. If the gods have to give up their goddess of
fertility—she who protects
all life—the grass will disappear from the fields and
all gods and mortals will die. The situation is deadlocked.
Loki returns to Asgard, so the myth
goes, and tells Freyja to put on her wedding attire for she is (alas!) to wed the king of the giants.
Freyja is furious, and says people will think she is absolutely man-crazy if she agrees to marry a giant.
Then the god Heimdall
has an idea. He suggests
that Thor dress up as a
bride. With his hair up and two stones under
his tunic he will look like a
woman. Understandably, Thor
is not wildly enthusiastic about the idea, but he finally accepts that this is the only way he will ever get his hammer back.
So
Thor allows himself
to be attired in bridal
costume, with Loki as his bridesmaid.
To put it in present-day terms, Thor and Loki are the gods’ “anti-terrorist squad.” Disguised
as women, their mission is to breach the giants’ stronghold and recapture Thor’s hammer.
When the gods arrive at Jotunheim, the giants begin to prepare the wedding feast. But during the feast,
the bride—Thor, that is—devours an entire
ox and eight salmon. He also drinks three barrels of beer. This
astonishes Thrym. The true identity
of the “commandos” is very nearly revealed. But Loki manages
to avert the danger by explaining that Freyja has been looking forward to coming to jotunheim so much that she has not eaten
for a week.
When Thrym lifts the bridal veil to kiss the bride, he is startled
to find himself looking
into Thor’s burning
eyes. Once again Loki saves the situation by explaining that the bride has
not slept for a week because she is so excited about the wedding. At this, Thrym commands that the hammer be brought
forth and laid in
the bride’s lap during the wedding ceremony.
Thor roars with laughter when he is given the hammer. First he
kills Thrym with it, and then he wipes out the giants and all their kin. And thus the
gruesome hostage affair has a happy
ending. Thor—the Batman or James Bond of the gods—has
once again conquered
the forces of evil.
So much for the myth itself, Sophie. But what is the real meaning behind it? It wasn’t made up just for entertainment. The myth also tries to
explain something. Here is one possible
interpretation:
When a drought occurred, people sought an explanation of why there was no rain.
Could it be that the giants had stolen Thor’s
hammer?
Perhaps the myth was an attempt
to explain the changing seasons
of the year: in the winter Nature dies
because Thor’s hammer is in
jotunheim. But in the spring he succeeds in winning it back. So the myth tried
to give people an explanation for something
they could not understand.
But a myth was not only an explanation. People also carried out religious
ceremonies related to the myths. We can imagine how people’s
response to drought or crop failure would be to enact a drama about the events in the
myth. Perhaps a man from the village would dress up as a bride—with stones for breasts—in order to steal the
hammer back from the giants.
By doing this, people were taking some action to make it
rain so the crops would grow in their
fields.
There are a great many examples from other parts of the world of the way people dramatized their myths of the seasons in order to speed up the
processes of nature.
So
far we have only taken a brief glimpse at the world of Norse
mythology. But there were countless
myths about Thor and Odin, Freyr and Frey
a, Hoder and Balder and many other gods.
Mythologica notions of this kind flourished
all over the world until philosophers began to tamper with them.
A
mythological world picture also existed
in Greece when the first philosophy was evolving. The stories of the Greek gods had been handed down from generation to generation for centuries.
In Greece the gods were called Zeus and Apollo, Hera and Athene, Dionysos and Ascle-pios, Heracles and Hephaestos, to mention only a few of them.
Around 700 B.C., much of the
Greek mythology was written down by Homer and Hesiod.
This created a whole
new situation. Now that the myths existed in written
form, it was possible to discuss them.
The
earliest Greek philosophers criticized Homer’s
mythology because the gods
resembled mortals too much and were just as egoistic and treacherous. For the first time it was said that the myths were nothing but human notions.
One
exponent of this view was the philosopher Xe-nophanes, who lived
from about 570 B.C. Men have created the gods in their own image, he said.
They believe the gods were born and have bodies and clothes
and language just as we have. Ethiopians believe that the gods are black and flat-nosed, Thracians imagine them
to be blue-eyed and fair-haired. If oxen, horses,
and lions could draw, they would depict
gods that looked like oxen, horses, and lions!
During that period the Greeks founded many city-states, both in Greece itself and in the Greek colonies in Southern
Italy and Asia Minor, where all manual work was done by slaves,
leaving the citizens
free to devote all their time to politics and culture.
In
these city environments people began to think in a completely new way. Purely on his own behalf, any citizen could question the way society ought to be organized. Individuals could thus also ask philosophical questions without recourse to ancient
myths.
We
call this the development from a mythological mode of thought
to one based on experience and reason. The aim of the early Greek philosophers
was to find natural, rather than
supernatural, explanations for natural processes.
Sophie left the den and wandered about in the large garden. She tried to forget what she had learned at school, especially in science classes.
If she had grown up in this garden without
knowing anything at all about nature, how would she feel about the spring?
Would she try to invent some kind of explanation for why it suddenly started to rain one day? Would
she work out some fantasy to explain where the snow went and why the sun rose in
the morning?
Yes, she
definitely would. She began to make
up a story:
Winter held the land in
its icy grip because the evil Muriat
had imprisoned the beautiful Princess
Sikita in a cold prison. But one morning
the brave Prince Bravato came and
rescued her. Sikita was so happy that she began to dance over the meadows,
singing a song she had composed inside the dank prison. The earth and the trees
were so moved that all the snow turned
into tears. But then the sun came out and dried all the tears away. The birds imitated Sikita’s song, and when the beautiful princess let
down her
golden tresses, a few locks of her hair
fell onto the earth and turned
into the lilies of the field ...
Sophie liked her beautiful story. If she had not known
any other explanation for the changing
seasons, she felt sure she would have come to believe her own story in the end.
She understood that people had always felt a
need to explain the processes of nature. Perhaps they could not live without such explanations. And
that they made up all those myths
in the time before there was anything
called science.
The Natural
Philosophers
… nothing can come from nothing …
When her mother got home from work that afternoon Sophie was sitting in
the glider, pondering the possible connection between the philosophy course and Hilde Moller Knag, who
would not be getting a birthday card from her
father.
Her mother
called from the other end of the garden, “Sophie! There’s a letter for
you!”
She caught her breath. She
had already emptied the mailbox, so the letter had to
be from the
philosopher. What on earth would she say to her mother? “There’s
no stamp on it. It’s probably a love
letter!”
Sophie
took the letter.
“Aren’t
you going to open it?” She had
to find an excuse.
“Have you ever heard of anyone opening a love letter with her mother looking over
her shoulder?”
Let her mother
think it was a love letter. Although it was embarrassing
enough, it would be even worse if her mother
found out that she was doing a correspondence course with a complete stranger, a philosopher who was
playing hide-and-seek with her.
It was one of the little white envelopes. When Sophie got upstairs to her room, she found three new questions:
Is there
a basic substance that everything else is made of? Can water turn into wine?
How can
earth and water produce a live frog!
Sophie found the questions pretty stupid, but nevertheless they kept buzzing
around in her head all evening. She
was still thinking about them at school the next day, examining them one by one.
Could there be a “basic substance” that
everything was made of? If there was some such substance, how
could it suddenly turn into a flower or an elephant?
The same
objection applied to the question of
whether water could turn into wine.
Sophie knew the parable of how Jesus turned
water into wine, but she had never taken it literally. And if Jesus really had turned water into wine, it was because it was
a miracle,
something that could not be done normally. Sophie knew there was a
lot of water, not only in wine but in all other growing things. But even if a cucumber was 95 percent
water, there must be something else in it as well, because a
cucumber was a cucumber, not water.
And then there
was the question about the
frog. Her philosophy teacher had this really weird thing about frogs.
Sophie could possibly accept that a frog consisted of earth and water, in which
case the earth must consist of more than one kind of substance. If the earth consisted
of a lot of different substances, it was obviously possible that earth and water together could
produce a frog. That is, if the earth
and the water went via frog spawn and tadpoles. Because a frog could not just grow
out of a cabbage patch, however much
you watered it.
When she got home from school that day there was a fat envelope waiting for her
in the mailbox. Sophie hid in the den just as she had done the other days.
THE PHILOSOPHERS’ PROJECT
Here we are again! We’ll go directly
to today’s lesson without detours around white rabbits and the like.
I’ll outline very broadly the way people have thought about philosophy,
from the ancient Greeks right up to our own day. But we’ll take things in their
correct order.
Since some philosophers lived in a different age—and perhaps
in a completely different
culture from ours—it
is a good idea to try and see what each philosopher’s
project is. By this I mean that we must try to grasp precisely what it is that each particular philosopher is especially concerned with finding out. One philosopher might want to know how plants and animals came into being. Another might
want to know whether there is a God or whether man has an immortal soul.
Once we have determined what a particular philosopher’s project is, it is
easier to follow his line of thought, since no one philosopher concerns
himself with the whole of philosophy.
I
said his line of thought—referring to the philosopher, because this is also a story of men. Women of the past were subjugated both as females
and as thinking beings,
which is sad because
a great deal of very important ex- perience was lost as a result. It was
not until this century that women really
made their mark on the history of philosophy.
I
do not intend to give you any homework—no difficult math questions, or anything
like that, and conjugating English verbs is outside my sphere of interest. However, from time to time I’ll give you a short assignment.
If you accept these conditions, we’ll begin.
THE NATURAL
PHILOSOPHERS
The
earliest Greek philosophers are sometimes called natural philosophers because they were
mainly concerned with the natural
world and its processes.
We
have already asked ourselves where
everything comes from. Nowadays a lot of people imagine that at some time something
must have come from nothing.
This idea was not so widespread among
the Greeks. For one reason or another, they assumed that “something” had always existed.
How everything could come from nothing was therefore not the all- important question.
On the other hand the Greeks marveled
at how live fish could come from water, and huge trees and brilliantly colored flowers could
come from the dead earth. Not to mention how a baby could come from its
mother’s womb!
The
philosophers observed with their own eyes that nature was in a constant state of
transformation. But how could such transformations occur?
How
could something change from being substance to being a living thing, for example?
All
the earliest philosophers shared the belief that there had to be a certain basic substance at the root of all change. How they arrived
at this idea is hard to say. We only know that the notion gradually
evolved that there must
be a basic substance that was the hidden cause of all changes
in nature. There had to be
“something” that all things came from
and returned to.
For
us, the most interesting part is actually
not what solutions these earliest philosophers arrived at, but which questions
they asked and what type of answer they were looking for. We are more interested in how they thought
than in exactly what they thought.
We
know that they posed questions
relating to the
transformations they could observe in the physical world. They were looking
for the underlying laws of nature.
They wanted to understand what was happening around them
without having to turn to the ancient myths.
And most important, they wanted to understand the actual processes
by studying nature itself.
This was quite different from explaining thunder
and lightning or
winter and spring by telling stories about the gods.
So
philosophy gradually liberated itself from religion. We could say that
the natural philosophers took the
first step in the direction of
scientific reasoning, thereby becoming
the precursors of what was to become science.
Only fragments have survived
of what the natural philosophers said and wrote. What little we know is found in the writings
of Aristotle, who lived two centuries later. He refers only to the conclusions the philosophers reached.
So
we do not always know by what paths they reached these conclusions. But what
we do know enables us to establish that the earliest
Greek philosophers’ project concerned
the question of a basic constituent substance and the changes in nature.
THREE PHILOSOPHERS
FROM MILETUS
The
first philosopher we know of is Thales,
who came from Miletus, a Greek
colony in Asia Minor. He traveled in many countries, including
Egypt, where he is said to have calculated the height of a
pyramid by measuring its shadow at the precise moment when the
length of his own shadow was equal to his height.
He is also said to have accurately predicted a solar eclipse in
the year 585 B.C.
Thales thought that the source of all things was water. We do not know
exactly what he meant by that, he may
have believed that all life
originated from water—and that all life returns to water again when it dissolves.
During his travels in Egypt he must
have observed how the crops began to grow as soon as the floods of the Nile
receded from the land areas in the
Nile Delta. Perhaps he also noticed that frogs and worms appeared wherever it had just been raining.
It
is likely that Thales thought
about the way water turns to ice or
vapor—and then turns back into water again.
Thales is also supposed
to have said that “all things
are full of gods.” What he meant by that we can only surmise. Perhaps, seeing how the black
earth was the source of everything from
flowers and crops to insects and
cockroaches, he imagined that the earth was filled with tiny invisible “life- germs.” One thing is certain—he was not talking about Homer’s gods.
The
next philosopher we hear of is
Anaximander, who also lived in
Miletus at about the same time as Thales. He thought
that our world was only one
of a myriad of worlds that evolve
and dissolve in something he
called the boundless. It is not so easy to explain what he meant by the boundless, but it
seems clear that he was not thinking
of a known substance in the way that Thales had envisaged. Perhaps he meant that
the substance which is the source of all things had to be something
other than the things created. Because all created things are limited, that which comes before and after
them must
be “boundless.” It is clear that this
basic stuff could not be anything as ordinary as water.
A
third philosopher from Miletus was Anaximenes (c. 570—526 B.C.). He thought that the source of all things must be “air” or “vapor.”
Anaximenes was of course familiar with Tholes’ theory of water. But where does water come from? Anaximenes thought
that water was condensed air. We observe that when it rains, water is pressed from
the air. When water is pressed even more, it becomes earth, he thought. He may
have seen how earth and sand were pressed out of melting
ice. He also thought that fire was rarefied air. According to Anaximenes, air was therefore
the origin of earth, water, and fire.
It is not
a far cry from water to the fruit of the earth. Perhaps
Anaximenes thought that earth, air, and fire
were all necessary to the creation of life, but that the source of all things
was air or vapor. So, like Thales, he thought that there must be an underlying
substance that is the source of all natural change.
Nothing Can
Come from Nothing
These three Milesian philosophers all believed in the
existence of a single basic substance
as the source of all things. But how could one
substance suddenly change into something
else? We can call this the
problem of change.
From about 500 B.C., there was a group
of philosophers in the Greek colony
of Elea in Southern Italy. These “Eleatics” were interested in this question.
The most important
of these philosophers was Parmenides (c. 540-480
B.C.). Parmenides thought
that everything that exists had always
existed. This idea was not
alien to the Greeks. They took it
more or less for granted that everything that existed
in the world was everlasting. Nothing
can come out of
nothing, thought Parmenides. And nothing that exists can become nothing.
But
Parmenides took the idea further. He thought that there was no such
thing as actual change. Nothing
could become anything
other than it was.
Parmenides realized, of course, that nature is in a constant
state of flux. He
perceived with his senses that things changed. But he could not equate this with what his reason told him.
When forced to choose between
relying ei- ther on his senses
or his reason, he chose reason.
You
know the expression “I’ll believe it when I see it.” But Parmenides didn’t
even believe things when he saw
them. He believed that our senses give us an incorrect picture of the world, a picture that does not tally with our
reason. As a philosopher, he saw it as his task to expose all forms of
perceptual illusion.
This unshakable faith in human reason is
called rationalism. A rationalist is someone who believes that human reason is the primary source of our knowledge of the world.
All Things Flow
A
contemporary of Parmenides was Heraditus (c. 540-480
B.C.), who was from Ephesus in Asia Minor. He thought that constant change, or flow, was
in fact the mosf basic
characteristic of nature.
We could perhaps
say that Heraclitus had more faith in what he
could perceive than Parmenides did.
“Everything flows,”
said Heraclitus. Everything is in constant
flux and movement, nothing is
abiding. Therefore we “cannot step twice into the same river.” When I step into the river
for the second time, neither I nor the river are the same.
Heraclitus pointed out that the
world is characterized by opposites.
If we were never ill, we would not
know what it was to be well. If we never knew hunger, we would take no pleasure in being full. If there were never any
war, we would not appreciate peace. And if there
were no winter, we would never see the spring.
Both good and bad have their inevitable place in the order of things, Heraclitus believed.
Without this constant
interplay of opposites the world would cease to exist.
“God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, hunger and
satiety,” he said. He used the term “God,” but he was clearly
not referring to the gods of the mythology. To Heraclitus, God—or the Deity—was something that embraced the whole world. Indeed,
God can be seen most clearly in the
constant transformations and contrasts of nature.
Instead of the term “God,” Heraclitus often used the Greek word logos, meaning reason. Although we humans do not always think alike or have the same
degree of reason,
Heraclitus believed that there must be a kind of
“universal reason” guiding
everything that happens in nature.
This “universal reason” or “universal law” is something common to us all,
and something that everybody is guided by. And yet most people live by their
individual reason, thought
Heraclitus. In general, he despised his fellow be- ings. “The opinions of most people,”
he said, “are like the
playthings of
infants.”
So
in the midst of all nature’s constant flux and oppo-sites, Heraclitus saw an Entity or one-ness. This
“something,” which was the source of
everything, he called God or logos.
Four Basic
Elements
In
one way, Parmenides and Heraclitus were the direct opposite of each
other. Parmenides’ reason made it
clear that nothing could change.
Heraclitus’
sense perceptions made it equally clear that nature was in a
constant state of change. Which of them
was right? Should we let reason dictate or should we rely on our senses?
Parmenides and Heraclitus both say two things: Parmenides says:
a)
that nothing can change, and
b) that
our sensory perceptions must therefore be unreliable. Heraclitus,
on the other hand, says:
a) that everything changes (“all things flow”), and b) that our sensory perceptions
are reliable.
* * *
Philosophers could hardly disagree more than that! But who was right? It fell
to Empedocles (c. 490-430 B.C.) from
Sicily to lead the way out of the tangle they had gotten themselves into.
He
thought they were both right in one of
their assertions but wrong in the other.
Empedocles found that the cause
of their basic disagreement
was that both philosophers had assumed the presence
of only one element. If this were
true, the gap between what reason dictates and what “we can see with our own eyes” would be unbridgeable.
Water obviously cannot turn into a fish or a butterfly. In fact, water cannot change. Pure water will continue
to be pure water. So Parmenides was right in holding
that “nothing changes.”
But
at the same time Empedocles agreed with Heraclitus that we must trust the evidence of our senses. We
must believe what we see, and
what we see is precisely that nature changes.
Empedocles concluded that it was the
idea of a single basic substance that had to be rejected. Neither water nor air
alone can change into a rosebush or a butterfly. The source of nature
cannot possibly be one single “element.”
Empedocles believed that all in all, nature consisted
of four elements, or
“roots” as he termed them. These four roots were earth, air, fire, and wafer.
All
natural processes were due to the
coming together and separating of these four elements. For all things were a mixture of earth, air, fire, and water, but in varying proportions. When a flower or
an animal dies, he said, the four elements separate again. We can register these changes with the naked eye. But earth
and air, fire and water remain everlasting, “untouched” by all the compounds of which they are part. So it is not correct to say that “everything”
changes. Basically, nothing
changes. What happens
is that the four elements are combined
and separated—only to be combined
again.
We
can make a comparison to painting. If a painter
only has one color—
red, for instance—he cannot paint green trees.
But if he has yellow, red, blue, and black, he can paint in hundreds
of different colors because
he can mix them in varying
proportions.
An
example from the kitchen
illustrates the same thing. If I only
have flour, I have to be a wizard to bake a cake.
But if I have eggs, flour, milk, and sugar, then I can make any number of
different cakes.
It
was not purely by chance that Empedocles
chose earth, air, fire, and water as nature’s
“roots.” Other philosophers before him had tried to show that the primordial
substance had to be either water, air, or fire. Thales and
Anaximenes had pointed out that both
water and air were essential elements in the physical world. The Greeks
believed that fire was also essential. They observed, for example, the importance of the sun to all living things, and they also knew that both animals and humans have body heat.
Empedocles might have watched a piece of wood burning.
Something
disintegrates. We hear it crackle and splutter. That is “water.” Something
goes up in smoke. That is “air.” The “fire” we can see. Something also remains
when the fire is extinguished. That is the ashes—or “earth.”
After Empedocles’
clarification of nature’s transformations as the combination and dissolution of the four “roots,”
something still remained to be explained. What makes these elements
combine so that new life can
occur? And what makes the “mixture” of,
say, a flower dissolve again?
Empedocles believed that there were two different forces at work in
nature. He called them love and strife. Love binds things together, and strife
separates them.
He
distinguishes between “substance” and “force.” This is worth noting. Even today, scientists distinguish between elements
and natural forces. Modern science holds that all natural
processes can be explained as the inter- action between different elements
and various natural
forces.
Empedocles also raised the question of what happens
when we perceive something. How can I “see” a flower, for example? What is it that happens? Have you ever thought
about it, Sophie?
Empedocles believed
that the eyes consist of earth, air, fire, and water, just like everything else
in nature. So the “earth” in my eye perceives what is of the earth in my surroundings, the “air” perceives what is of the air, the “fire”
perceives what is
of fire, and the “water” what is of water. Had my eyes lacked
any of the four substances, I would not have seen all of nature.
Something of
Everything in Everything
Anaxagoras (500-428 B.C.) was another philosopher who could not
agree that one particular basic substance—water, for instance—might be transformed into everything we see in the natural world. Nor could he accept that earth, air, fire, and water
can be transformed into blood and bone.
Anaxagoras held that nature is
built up of an infinite number of
minute particles invisible to the eye. Moreover, everything can be divided
into even smaller parts, but even in the minutest parts there are fragments of all other things. If skin and bone
are not a transformation of something
else, there must also be skin and
bone, he thought, in the milk we drink and the food we eat.
~~
A
couple of present-day examples can perhaps illustrate Anaxagoras’ line of thinking. Modern laser technology can produce so-called
holograms. If one of these holograms
depicts a car, for
example, and the hologram is fragmented, we will see a picture of the whole car even though
we only have the part of the hologram
that showed the bumper. This is because the whole
subject is present in every tiny part.
In a sense, our bodies are built up in the same way. If I loosen a skin cell from
my finger, the nucleus will contain not only the characteristics of my skin:
the same cell will also reveal what kind of eyes I have, the color of my hair,
the number and type of my fingers,
and so on. Every cell of the human body carries a blueprint of the way all the other
cells are constructed. So there is “something
of everything” in every single cell. The whole exists in each tiny
part.
Anaxagoras called these minuscule particles which have something of everything in them seeds.
Remember that Empedocles thought that it was “love” that joined the
elements together in whole bodies.
Anaxagoras also imagined “order”
as a kind of force, creating
animals and humans, flowers and trees. He called this force mind or intelligence
(nous).
Anaxagoras is also interesting because he was the
first philosopher we hear of in Athens. He was from Asia Minor but he moved to Athens at the age of forty. He was later accused
of atheism and was ultimately forced to leave the city. Among other things, he said that the sun was not a god but a red-hot
stone, bigger than the entire Peloponnesian peninsula.
Anaxagoras was generally very interested in astronomy. He believed that
all heavenly bodies were made of
the same substance as Earth. He
reached this conclusion after studying
a meteorite. This gave him the idea that
there could be human life on other planets. He also pointed out that the Moon has no light of its own—its light comes from
Earth, he said. He thought up an explanation for solar eclipses
as well.
P.S. Thank you for your attention, Sophie. It is not unlikely
that you will need to read this chapter two or three times before you understand it all. But understanding will always require
some effort. You probably
wouldn’t admire a friend
who was good at everything if it cost her no effort.
The
best solution to the question of basic substance and the transformations
in nature must wait until tomorrow,
when you will meet Democritus. I’ll say no more!
Sophie sat in the den looking out into the garden through a little hole in the dense thicket. She had
to try and sort out her thoughts after all she had read.
It was as clear as daylight that plain water could never turn into anything other
than ice or steam. Water couldn’t even turn into a watermelon, because even wa- termelons consisted of more than just water. But she was only sure of that because that’s
what she had learned. Would she be
absolutely certain, for example, that ice was only water if that
wasn’t what she had learned? At least, she would
have to have studied very closely how water froze to ice and melted again.
Sophie tried once again to use her own common sense,
and not to think about what she had learned from others.
Parmenides had refused to accept the idea of change in any form. And
the more she thought about it, the
more she was convinced that, in a way, he had
been right.
His intelligence
could not accept that “something” could suddenly transform itself into “something completely
different.” It must have taken quite
a bit of courage to come right out
and say it, because it meant denying all the natural changes that people could see for themselves. Lots of people must have
laughed at him.
And Empedocles
must have been pretty smart too, when he proved that the world had
to consist of more than one single substance. That made all the transfor- mations
of nature possible without anything actually changing.
The old Greek philosopher had found that out
just by reasoning. Of course he had studied nature, but he didn’t have the equipment to do chemical analysis the way scientists do nowadays.
Sophie was not sure whether she really believed
that the source of everything actually was earth, air, fire, and water. But
after all, what did that matter? In principle, Empedocles was right. The only way we can accept the transformations
we can see with our own eyes—without losing our reason—is to admit the existence of more than one single basic substance.
Sophie
found philosophy doubly exciting because she was able to follow all
the
ideas by using her own common sense—without having to remember everything she
had learned at school. She decided that philosophy
was not something you can learn; but
perhaps you can learn to think philosophically.
Democritus
…the most ingenious toy in the world…
Sophie put all the typed pages from the
unknown philosopher back into the cookie tin and put the lid on it. She crawled out of the den and stood for a while
looking across the garden. She thought about
what happened yesterday. Her mother
had teased her about the “love letter” again
at breakfast this morning. She walked quickly over to the mailbox to prevent the same thing from happening today.
Getting a love letter two days in a row
would be doubly embarrassing.
There was another little white envelope! Sophie
began to discern a pattern in the
deliveries: every afternoon she would find a big brown envelope. While she read the contents, the
philosopher would sneak up to the mailbox
with another little white envelope.
So now Sophie would be able to find out who he was. If it was a he! She had a good
view of the mailbox from her room.
If she stood at the window she would see
the mysterious philosopher. White envelopes don’t just appear out of
thin air!
Sophie
decided to keep a careful watch the following day. Tomorrow was
Friday and she would have the whole weekend ahead
of her.
She went up to her room and opened the envelope. There was only one question today, but
it was even dumber than the previous
three:
Why is
Lego the most ingenious toy in the world?
For a start, Sophie
was not at all sure she agreed that
it was. It was years since she had played
with the little plastic blocks.
Moreover she could not for the life
of her see what Lego could possibly have to do with philosophy.
But she was a dutiful student. Rummaging on
the top shelf of her closet, she found a bag full of Lego blocks of all shapes
and sizes.
For the first
time in ages she began to build with them. As she worked, some
ideas began to occur to her about the blocks.
They are easy to assemble, she thought. Even
though they are all different, they all fit together. They are also unbreakable. She couldn’t ever remember having seen a broken Lego block. All
her blocks looked as bright and new
as the day they were bought, many
years ago. The best thing about them was that with Lego she could con- struct
any kind of object. And then she could
separate the blocks and construct something
new.
What more
could one ask of a toy? Sophie decided that Lego really could be
called the most ingenious toy in the
world. But what it had to do with
philosophy was beyond her.
She had nearly finished constructing a big doll’s house. Much as she hated to admit it, she hadn’t had as much fun in ages.
Why did people quit playing when they grew up?
When her mother got home and saw what Sophie had been doing, she blurted out, “What fun! I’m so glad you’re not too grown up to play!”
“I’m not playing!” Sophie retorted indignantly, “I’m doing a very complicated
philosophical experiment!”
Her mother
signed deeply. She was probably
thinking about the white rabbit and the top hat.
When Sophie got home from school the
following day, there were several more
pages for her in a big brown envelope. She took
them upstairs to her room. She could
not wait to read them, but she had to
keep her eye on the mailbox at the same time.
THE ATOM
THEORY
Here I am again, Sophie. Today you are going to hear about the last
of the great natural philosophers. His name
is Democritus (c. 460-370 B.C.) and he was from the little town of Abdera on
the northern Aegean coast.
If you were able to answer the question
about Lego blocks without
difficulty, you should have no problem understanding what this philosopher’s
project was.
Democritus agreed with his predecessors
that transformations in nature
could not be due to the fact that anything actually
“changed.” He therefore assumed that everything was built up of
tiny invisible blocks, each of which
was eternal and immutable. Democritus called these smallest units atoms.
The
word “a-tom” means “un-cuttable.” For Democritus it was all- important to establish that the constituent parts that everything else was composed of could not be divided indefinitely into smaller
parts. If this were possible, they could not be used as blocks. If atoms could eternally be broken down into ever smaller
parts, nature would begin to dissolve like constantly
diluted soup.
Moreover, nature’s blocks had to be eternal—because nothing
can come from nothing. In
this, he agreed with Parmenides and the Eleatics.
Also, he believed that all
atoms were firm and solid. But they could not all be the same.
If all atoms were identical, there would still
be no satisfactory explanation of how they could combine to form
everything from poppies and olive
trees to goatskin and human hair.
Democritus believed that nature consisted
of an unlimited number and variety of atoms. Some were round and smooth,
others were irregular
and jagged. And precisely
because they were so
different they could join together into all kinds of different bodies.
But however infinite
they might be in number and shape, they were all eternal, immutable, and indivisible.
When a body—a tree or an animal, for instance—died and disintegrated, the atoms dispersed and could be used again in new bodies.
Atoms moved around in space, but because they had “hooks” and
“barbs,” they could join together to form all the things we see around us.
So
now you see what I meant about
Lego blocks. They have more or less the same properties as those which Democritus ascribed
to atoms. And that
is what makes them so much fun to build with. They are first and foremost
indivisible. Then they have different shapes and sizes. They are solid and
impermeable. They also
have “hooks” and “barbs” so that they can be connected to form every conceivable figure. These connections can later be broken
again so that new figures can be constructed from the same blocks.
The
fact that they can be used over and over is what has made Lego so popular. Each single Lego block can be part of a truck one day and part of
a castle the day after. We could also
say
that lego blocks are “eternal.” Children of today can play with the same blocks their parents
played with when they
were little.
We
can form things out of clay too,
but clay cannot be used over and over, because it can be broken up into smaller
and smaller pieces. These tiny
pieces can never be joined together again to make something
else.
Today we can establish that Democritus’ atom theory was
more or less correct. Nature really is built up of different
“atoms” that join and separate again. A hydrogen atom in a cell at the end of my nose was once part of an
elephant’s trunk. A carbon atom in my cardiac muscle was once in the tail of a dinosaur.
In
our own time, however, scientists have
discovered that atoms can be broken into smaller
“elemental particles.” We call these elemental
particles protons, neutrons, and electrons. These will possibly some day be broken into even
lesser particles. But physicists agree that somewhere along the line
there has to be a limit. There has to be
a “minimal part” of which nature
consists.
Democritus did
not have access to modern electronic apparatus. His
only proper equipment
was his mind. But reason left him no real choice. Once it is accepted that nothing can
change, that nothing can come out of
nothing, and that nothing
is ever lost, then nature
must consist of infinitesimal blocks that can join and separate again.
Democritus did not believe
in any “force” or “soul”
that could intervene in natural processes. The only things that
existed, he believed, were atoms and
the void. Since he believed
in nothing but material things,
we call him a materialist.
According to Democritus, there is no conscious “design”
in the movement of atoms. In
nature, everything happens quite mechanically. This
does not mean that everything happens randomly, for everything obeys the
inevitable laws of necessity. Everything that happens has a natural
cause, a cause that is inherent
in the thing itself. Democritus once said that he would
rather discover a new cause of nature
than be the King of Persia.
The atom
theory also explains our
sense perception, thought
Democritus. When
we sense something, it is due to the
movement of atoms in space. When I see the moon, it is because
“moon atoms” penetrate
my eye.
But
what about the “soul,” then? Surely that could not consist of atoms,
of material things? Indeed it could. Democritus believed that the soul was
made up of special round, smooth “soul atoms.” When a human being died,
the soul atoms flew in all directions, and could then become part of
a new soul formation.
This meant that human beings had no immortal
soul, another belief that
many people share today. They believe, like Democritus, that “soul” is connected with brain, and that we cannot have any form of consciousness once the brain disintegrates.
Democritus’s atom theory marked
the end of Greek natural philosophy
for the time being. He agreed with
,Her-aclitus that everything in nature
“flowed,” since Torms come and go. But behind everything that flowed there were some eternal and immutable things
that did not flow. Democritus called them atoms.
During her reading Sophie glanced out of the window several times to see whether her mysterious
correspondent had turned up at the mailbox.
Now she just sat staring down the road, thinking about what she had read. She felt that Democritus’s ideas had been so simple and yet so ingenious. He had discovered the real solution
to the problem of “basic substance” and “transformation.” This problem had
been so complicated that philosophers
had gone around puzzling over it for generations. And
in the
end Democritus had solved it on
his own by using his common sense.
Sophie could hardly help smiling. It had to be true
that nature was built up of small
parts that never changed. At the same time
Heraclitus was obviously right in
thinking that all forms in nature
“flow.” Because everybody dies, animals
die, even a mountain range slowly disintegrates.
The point was that the mountain range is made up of tiny indivisible parts that never break up.
At the same
time Democritus had raised some new questions. For
example, he had said that everything
happened mechanically. He did not accept that there was any spiritual force in life—unlike Empedocles
and An-axagoras. Democritus
also believed that man had no
immortal soul.
Could she
be sure of that?
She didn’t
know. But then she had only just
begun the philosophy course.
Fate
… the “fortune-teller” is trying to foresee something that
is really quite unforeseeable ...
Sophie had been keeping her eye on the mailbox
while she read about Democritus. But just in case, she decided
nevertheless to take a stroll
down to the garden gate.
When she opened the front door she saw a small envelope on the front step. And sure
enough—it was addressed to Sophie Amundsen.
So he had tricked her! Today of all days,
when she had kept such careful watch on the mailbox,
the mystery man had sneaked up to the house from a different angle and
just laid the letter on the step
before making off into the woods
again. Drat!
How did
he know that Sophie was watching the mailbox
today? Had he seen
her at the window? Anyway, she was glad to find
the letter before her mother arrived.
Sophie went back to her room and opened the letter. The white envelope was a bit wet around the edges,
and had two little holes in it. Why was that? It had not rained for several days.
The little
note inside read:
Do you
believe in Fate?
Is sickness
the punishment of the gods? What forces govern the course of history?
Did she believe in Fate? She was not at all sure. But she knew a lot of people who did. There was a
girl in her class who read
horoscopes in magazines. But if they believed in
astrology, they probably believed in
Fate as well, because astrologers
claimed that the position of the stars influenced people’s lives on
Earth.
If you believed that a black cat crossing
your path meant bad luck—well, then
you believed in Fate, didn’t you? As she thought about it, several more
examples of fatalism occurred to her. Why do so many people knock on wood, for example? And
why was Friday the thirteenth an unlucky day? Sophie had heard that lots of hotels had
no room number 13. It had to be because so many people were
superstitious.
“Superstitious.” What
a strange word. If you believed in
Christianity or Islam, it was called
“faith.” But if you believed in astrology or Friday the thirteenth it was
superstition! Who had the right to call other people’s belief superstition?
Sophie was sure of one thing, though. Democritus
had not believed in fate. He was a materialist.
He had only believed in atoms and empty space.
Sophie
tried to think about the other
questions on the note.
“Is sickness the punishment of the gods?”
Surely nobody believed that nowadays? But
it occurred to her that many people thought it helped to pray for
recovery, so at any rate they must
believe that God had some power over people’s health.
The last question was harder to answer. Sophie
had never given much thought to what
governed the course of history. It had to be people, surely? If it was God or
Fate, people had no free
will.
The idea of free will made Sophie think of
something else. Why should she
put up with this mysterious philosopher playing cat and mouse with her? Why couldn’t she write
a letter to him. He (or she) would quite probably put another big envelope
in the mailbox during the
night or sometime tomorrow
morning. She would see to it that
there was a letter ready for
this person.
Sophie began right away. It was difficult to
write to someone she had never seen.
She didn’t even know if it was a man
or a woman. Or if he or she was old
or young. For that matter, the mysterious philosopher could even be someone she already knew. She wrote:
Most respected philosopher, Your generous
correspondence course in philosophy is greatly appreciated by us here. But it
bothers us not to know who you are. We
therefore request you to use your full name. In return we would like to extend our
hospitality should you care to corne and have
coffee with us, but preferably when my mother
is at home. She is at work from 7:30 a.m.
to 5 p.m. every day from Monday to Friday. I am at school during these
days, but I am always home by 2:15 p.m., except on Thursdays. I am also very good at making coffee.
Thanking
you in advance, I remain
Your attentive
student, Sophie Amundsen (aged 14)
At the bottom of the page she wrote RSVP.
Sophie felt that the letter had turned out much too formal. But it was hard to
know which words to choose when
writing to a person without a face. She put the letter in a pink envelope and addressed it “To the philosopher.”
The problem was where to put it so her mother
didn’t find it. She would have to wait for her to get home before putting it in the
mailbox. And she would also have to remember to look in the mailbox early the next morning
before the newspaper arrived. If no new letter came for her this evening or during the night, she would have to
take the pink envelope in again.
Why did
it all have to be so complicated?
That evening Sophie went up to her room early, even though it was Friday. Her
mother tried to tempt her with pizza
and a thriller on TV, but Sophie said she was tired and wanted to go to bed and
read. While her mother sat
watching TV, she sneaked out to the mailbox
with her letter.
Her mother
was clearly worried. She had started speaking to Sophie in a different tone
since the business with the white rabbit and the top hat. Sophie hated to be a
worry to her mother, but she just had
to go upstairs and keep an eye on the mailbox.
When her mother came up at about eleven
o’clock, Sophie was sitting at the window staring down the road.
“You’re
not still sitting there staring at the mailbox!” she said. “I
can look at whatever I like.”
“I really
think you must be in love, Sophie.
But if he is going to bring you
another letter,
he certainly won’t come in the middle
of the night.”
Yuck! Sophie loathed all that soppy talk about love. But she had to let her mother
go on believing it was true.
“Is he
the one who told you about the rabbit
and the top hat?” her mother asked.
Sophie nodded.
“He—he
doesn’t do drugs, does he?”
Now Sophie felt really sorry for her mother. She couldn’t go on letting her
worry this way, although it was completely nutty of her
to think that just because someone had a slightly
bizarre idea he must be on something. Grownups really were idiotic sometimes.
She said, “Mom,
I promise you once and for all I’ll
never do any of that stuff... and he doesn’t either. But he is very interested in philosophy.”
“Is he
older than you?” Sophie shook her
head. “The same age?” Sophie nodded.
“Well, I’m sure he’s very sweet, darling. Now I think
you should try and get some sleep.”
But Sophie stayed sitting by the window for
what seemed like hours. At last she
could hardly keep her eyes open. It was
one o’clock.
She was just about to go to bed when she
suddenly caught sight of a shadow emerging
from the woods.
Although it was almost
dark outside, she could make out the shape of a human figure. It was a man, and Sophie thought he looked quite old. He was certainly not her
age! He was wearing a beret of some
kind.
She could have sworn he glanced up at the house, but Sophie’s light was not on.
The man went straight up to the mailbox and dropped a big envelope into it.
As he let go of it, he caught sight of Sophie’s letter. He reached down into the mailbox
and fished it up. The next minute he was walking swiftly back toward the woods. He hur- ried down the
woodland path and was gone.
Sophie felt her heart pounding. Her first instinct was to run after him in her pajamas but she didn’t dare run after a stranger in the middle of the night. But she did have to go
out and fetch the envelope.
After a minute or two she crept down the stairs,
opened the front door quietly, and ran to the mailbox. In a flash she was back
in her room with the envelope
in her hand. She sat on her bed, holding her breath. After a few minutes
had passed and all was still quiet in the house, she opened the letter and
began to read.
She knew this would not be an answer to her
own letter. That could not arrive until tomorrow.
FATE
Good morning once again, my dear Sophie.
In case you should get any
ideas, let me make it quite clear that you must never attempt to check up on
me. One day we will meet, but I shall be the one to decide when and where. And
that’s final. You are not going to
disobey me, are you?
But
to return to the philosophers. We have seen how they tried to find natural explanations for
the transformations in Nature.
Previously these things had been explained through myths.
Old
superstitions had to be cleared
away in other areas as well. We see them at work in matters of sickness and health as well as in political events.
In
both these
areas the Greeks were great believers in fatalism.
Fatalism is the belief that whatever
happens is predestined. We find this belief all over the world, not only throughout history
but in our own day as
welt. Here in the Nordic countries we find a strong belief in
“lagnadan,” or fate, in the old Icelandic sagas of the Edda.
We
also find the belief, both in Ancient
Greece and in other parts of the world, that people could learn their fate from some form of oracle. In other words, that the
fate of a person or a country could be foreseen in various ways.
There are still a lot of people who believe that they can tell your fortune in the cards, read your palm, or predict your future in the stars.
A
special Norwegian version of
this is telling your fortune in
coffee cups. When a coffee cup is empty there are usually some traces of coffee grounds left. These might
form a certain image or pattern—at least, if we give our
imagination free rein. If the grounds resemble
a car, it might mean that the person who drank from the cup
is going for a long drive.
Thus the “fortune-teller” is trying to foresee something that is really quite
unforeseeable. This is characteristic of all forms of foreseeing. And precisely
because what they “see” is so vague, it
is hard to repudiate fortune-tellers’ claims.
When we gaze up at the stars, we
see a veritable chaos of twinkling dots. Nevertheless, throughout the ages
there have always been people who believed that the stars could tell us something
about our life on Earth. Even
today there are political leaders
who seek the advice of astrologers before they make any important decisions.
The Oracle
at Delphi
The
ancient Greeks believed that they could consult the famous oracle at
Delphi about their fate. Apollo, the god of the oracle, spoke through his
priestess Pythia, who sat on a stool over a fissure in the earth, from which
arose hypnotic vapors that put Pythia
in a
trance. This enabled
her to be Apollo’s mouthpiece.
When people came to Delphi they had to present their question to the priests of the oracle, who passed it on to Pythia.
Her answer would be so obscure
or ambiguous that the priests would
have to interpret it. In that way, the ieople got the benefit
of Apollo’s wisdom,
believing that e knew everything, even about the future.
There were many heads of state who
dared not go to war or take other decisive steps until they had consulted the oracle at Delphi.
The priests of Apollo
thus functioned more or less as diplomats, or advisers. They were
experts with an intimate knowledge of the people and the country.
Over the entrance to the temple at Delphi was a famous inscription:
KNOW THYSELF! It reminded
visitors that man must never
believe himself to be more than
mortal—and that no man can escape his destiny.
The
Greeks had many stories of people
whose destiny catches up with them. As time went by, a number of plays—tragedies—were written
about these “tragic” people. The most famous one is the tragedy
of King Oedipus.
History and
Medicine
But Fate did not just govern the lives of individuals. The Greeks believed
that even
world history was governed by Fate,
and that the fortunes of war could be swayed by the intervention of the
gods. Today there are still many people who believe
that God or some other
mysterious power is steering the course of history.
But
at the same time as Greek philosophers
were trying to find natural explanations for the processes of nature, the first
historians were beginning to search for natural explanations for the
course of history. When a country
lost
a war, the vengeance of the gods was no longer an acceptable explanation to them. The best known
Greek historians were
Herodotus (484-424 B.C.) and
Thucydides (460-400 B.C.).
The
Greeks also believed
that sickness could be ascribed to divine
intervention. On the other hand, the gods could make people well again if they made the appropriate sacrifices.
This idea was in no way unique to the Greeks. Before the development of
modern medicine, the most widely accepted view was that sickness was due to supernatural causes. The word
“influenza” actually means a malign influence
from the stars.
Even today, there are a
lot of people who believe that some diseases— AIDS, for example—are God’s punishment.
Many also believe that sick people can be cured with the help of the supernatural.
Concurrently with the new directions in Greek philosophy, a Greek medical science arose which tried to
find
natural explanations for sickness
and health. The founder of Greek
medicine is said to have been Hippocrates,
who was born on the island of Cos around 460 B.C.
The most essential safeguards against sickness, according to the
Hippocratic medical tradition, were moderation and a healthy lifestyle. Health
is the natural condition. When sickness occurs,
it is a sign that Nature has
gone off course because of physical or mental
imbalance. The road to health
for everyone is through moderation, harmony, and a “sound mind in a sound
body.”
There is a lot of talk today about
“medical ethics,” which is another
way of saying that a doctor must practice medicine according to certain ethical
rules. For instance, a doctor may not give healthy people a prescription for narcotics. A doctor must also maintain professional secrecy, which means that he is not allowed to reveal anything a patient has told him about his
illness. These ideas go back to Hippocrates.
He required his pupils to take the following oath:
I
will follow that system or regimen which, according
to my ability and judgment,
I consider to be for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. 1 will give no deadly medicine to anyone
if asked nor suggest any such counsel,
and in like manner I will not give to a woman the means to produce an abortion.
Whenever I go into a house, I will go for the benefit of the
sick and will abstain from every voluntary
act of mischief and corruption, and further,
from the seduction of females or males, whether freemen
or slaves.
Whatever, in connection with my professional practice, I see or hear which ought not to be spoken
abroad, I will keep secret. So long as I continue to carry out this oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men in all times, but should I violate this oath, may the reverse be my lot.
Sophie awoke with a start on Saturday morning. Was it a dream or had she
really seen the philosopher?
She felt under the bed with one hand. Yes—there
lay the letter that had come during the night. It wasn’t only a
dream.
She had definitely seen the philosopher! And
what’s more, with her own eyes she
had seen him take her letter!
She crouched down on the floor and pulled out
all the typewritten pages from under the bed. But what was that? Right by the wall there was something
red. A scarf, perhaps?
Sophie edged herself in under the bed and pulled out a red silk scarf. It wasn’t hers, that was for sure!
She examined
it more closely and gasped when she saw HILDE written in ink
along the seam.
Hilde!
But who was Hilde? How could their paths keep crossing like this?
Socrates
…wisest is she who knows she does not know…
Sophie put on a summer dress and hurried down
to the kitchen. Her mother was
standing by the kitchen table. Sophie decided
not to say anything about the silk scarf.
“Did you
bring in the newspaper?” she asked.
Her mother turned.
“Would you get it for me?”
Sophie
was out of the door in a flash, down
the gravel path to the mailbox. Only
the newspaper. She couldn’t expect an
answer so soon, she supposed. On
the front page of the paper she read something about the Norwegian UN battalion in
Lebanon.
The UN battalion ... wasn’t that the postmark on the card from Hilde’s father? But
the postage stamp had been Norwegian.
Maybe the Norwegian UN soldiers had their own post office with them.
“You’ve
become very interested in the newspaper,” said her mother drily when
Sophie returned to the kitchen.
Luckily her mother said no more about mailboxes and stuff, either during
breakfast or later on that day. When
she went shopping, Sophie took her
letter about Fate down to the den.
She was surprised
to see a little white envelope beside the cookie tin with the
other letters from the philosopher.
Sophie was quite sure she had not
put it there.
This envelope was also wet around the edges.
And it had a couple of deep holes in it, just like the one she had
received yesterday.
Had the philosopher been here? Did he
know about her secret hiding place? Why was the envelope wet?
All these
questions made her head spin. She
opened the letter and read the note: Dear Sophie, I read your letter with great interest— and not without some
regret. I must
unfortunately disappoint you with
regard to the invitation. We shall meet
one day, but it will probably be quite a while before I can come in person to Captain’s Bend.
I must add that from now on I will no longer be able to deliver
the letters personally. It would be much too risky in the long run.
In the future, letters will be
delivered by my little messenger. On
the other hand, they will be brought directly to the secret place in the garden.
You may
continue to contact me whenever you feel
the need. When you do, put a pink
envelope out with a cookie or a lump
of sugar in it. When the messenger
finds it, he will bring it straight to me.
P.S. It is not pleasant to decline a young
lady’s invitation to coffee, but sometimes it is a matter of necessity.
P.P.S. If you should come across a red silk scarf
anywhere, please take care of it. Sometimes
personal property gets mixed
up. Especially at school and places like that, and this is a philosophy
school.
Yours,
Alberto Knox
Sophie had lived for almost fifteen years, and
had received quite a lot of letters in her young life, at least at Christmas and on birthdays. But this letter was the
strangest one she had ever received.
It had no postage stamp. It hadn’t even been
put in the mailbox. It had been
brought straight to Sophie’s top-secret hideout
in the old hedge. The fact that it was wet in the dry spring weather was also most mystifying.
The strangest thing of all was the silk scarf, of course. The philosopher must
have another pupil. That was it. And this other
pupil had lost a red silk scarf.
Right. But how had she managed to
lose it under Sophie’s bed?
And Alberto
Knox … what kind of a name was that?
One thing was confirmed—the connection
between the philosopher and Hilde Moller
Knag. But that Hilde’s own father was now confusing their addresses—that was completely
incomprehensible.
Sophie sat for
a long time thinking about what
connection there could possibly be between Hilde and herself. Finally she gave up. The philosopher had written that she would
meet him one day. Perhaps she would meet Hilde too.
She turned the letter over. She now saw that there
were some sentences written on the
back as well:
Is there such a thing as natural modesty?
Wisest is she who knows she does not know... True insight comes from within.
He who knows what is right will do right.
Sophie knew that the short sentences that came
in the white envelopes were intended
to prepare her for the next big envelope, which would arrive shortly thereafter.
She suddenly had an idea. If the “messenger”
came
to the den to deliver a brown envelope, Sophie could simply sit and wait for him. Or was
it a her? She would definitely hang on
to whoever it was until he or she
told her more about the philosopher! The letter said that the “messenger”
was little. Could it be a child? “Is there such a thing as natural modesty?”
Sophie knew that “modesty” was an
old- fashioned word for shyness—for example, about
being seen naked. But was it really natural to be embarrassed about that? If
something was natural, she supposed,
it was the same for everybody. In many parts of the world it was completely
natural to be naked. So it must be society that decides what you can and can’t do. When Grandma
was young you certainly couldn’t sunbathe topless. But today, most
people think it is “natural,” even though it is still strictly forbidden in
lots of countries. Was this
phi- losophy? Sophie wondered.
The next
sentence was: “Wisest is she who
knows she does not know.”
Wiser than who? If the philosopher
meant that someone who realized that she didn’t know everything under the sun
was wiser than someone who knew just a little, but who
thought she knew a whole lot—well, that
wasn’t so difficult to agree with.
Sophie
had never thought about it before. But the more she did, the more
clearly she saw that knowing what you don’t know is also a kind of knowledge. The stupidest thing she knew was for
people to act like they knew all about things they knew absolutely nothing
about.
The next sentence was about true insight coming
from within. But didn’t all knowledge
come into people’s heads from the outside? On the other hand, Sophie
could remember situations when her mother or
the teachers at school had tried to teach her something
that she hadn’t been receptive to.
And whenever she had really learned
something, it was when she had somehow contributed to it herself. Now and
then, even, she would suddenly understand a
thing she’d drawn a total blank on before. That was probably what people meant by “insight.”
So far, so good. Sophie thought she had done
reasonably well on the first three questions. But
the next statement was
so odd she couldn’t help smiling: “He
who knows what is right will do right.”
Did that mean
that when a bank robber robbed a
bank it was because he didn’t know any better?
Sophie didn’t think so.
On the contrary, she thought that both children and adults did stupid things that
they probably regretted afterwards,
precisely because they had done them against their better judgment.
While she sat thinking, she heard something
rustling in the dry undergrowth on the other side of the hedge nearest the woods. Could it be the messenger?
Her heart started beating faster. It sounded like a panting animal was coming.
The next
moment a big Labrador pushed its way into the
den.
In its mouth
it held a big brown envelope which
it dropped at Sophie’s feet. It all happened so quickly that Sophie had no time to react. A second later she was sitting
with the big envelope in her hands—and
the golden Labrador had scampered off into the woods again.
Once it
was all over she reacted. She
started to cry. She sat like that for
a while, losing all sense of time. Then she looked up suddenly.
So that was his famous messenger! Sophie breathed a sigh of relief. Of course that
was why the white envelopes were wet around the edges and had holes in them. Why hadn’t she thought of it? Now it made
sense to put a cookie or a lump of sugar in the envelope when she wrote to the
philosopher.
She may
not always have been as smart as she
would like, but who could have
guessed that the messenger was a
trained dog! It was a bit out of the
ordinary, to put it mildly! She could
certainly forget all about forcing
the messenger to reveal Alberto Knox’s whereabouts.
Sophie
opened the big envelope and
began to read.
Can I make money from Betfair using my own money? - Work
ReplyDeleteYou can also use my account as a payment 메리트 카지노 주소 option of the account to cash in. you can deposit หารายได้เสริม funds to the Betfair account and withdraw your stake. 인카지노