Heraclitus' Fire as the arche
It seems that in the early days of Grecian philosophy, there was a tradition to posit what is known as an arche, translated variously as origin, beginning or first principle. The arche, as I understand it, is the fundamental "stuff" in the sense that all things that exist are simply different manifestations of this primordial substance.
The greek philosopher Thales thought the arche was water. Anaximander, Thales' successor and pupil rejected this idea because of the prevailing idea that water and fire were opposites and so water couldn't give rise to fire.
Heraclitus of Epheseus, another Greek philosopher, was of the opinion that fire was the arche.
There were other theories regarding the arche but as far as this thread is concerned, I want to focus on Heraclitus because I feel his fire is the arche makes complete sense.
Remember, as noted above, Anaximander thought water couldn't produce fire as they were opposites. However, with a little help from modern chemistry, we understand that fire is basically oxidation; fire is different chemicals reacting with oxygen. Given that's the case, what is water? Water, otherwise known as H2O, is simply oxidize Hydrogen i.e. when Hydrogen burns or is on fire we get water. In other words, fire can produce water.
Since water and fire are opposites of each other, everything else must lie between the two and because water is nothing but burnt Hydrogen, it seems that Hercaclitus wasn't too far from the truth if not right on the button about fire being the arche.
The greek philosopher Thales thought the arche was water. Anaximander, Thales' successor and pupil rejected this idea because of the prevailing idea that water and fire were opposites and so water couldn't give rise to fire.
Heraclitus of Epheseus, another Greek philosopher, was of the opinion that fire was the arche.
There were other theories regarding the arche but as far as this thread is concerned, I want to focus on Heraclitus because I feel his fire is the arche makes complete sense.
Remember, as noted above, Anaximander thought water couldn't produce fire as they were opposites. However, with a little help from modern chemistry, we understand that fire is basically oxidation; fire is different chemicals reacting with oxygen. Given that's the case, what is water? Water, otherwise known as H2O, is simply oxidize Hydrogen i.e. when Hydrogen burns or is on fire we get water. In other words, fire can produce water.
Since water and fire are opposites of each other, everything else must lie between the two and because water is nothing but burnt Hydrogen, it seems that Hercaclitus wasn't too far from the truth if not right on the button about fire being the arche.
Comments (10)
People may say it is water-like or fire-like in various ways. It does not mean H2o or literal fire.
Prakriti is the most subtle broken down/undifferentiated/homogeneous matter/energy possible.
Prakriti is co-eternal with Purusha, primordial consciousness.
Purusha is said to stir up Prakriti and so its evolutes begin. It separates into Tamas, Rajas and Sattva etc.
All else apart from Purusha even thoughts and subtle spiritual bodies and realms are all on the side of Prakriti.
Heraclitus made his inference that fire was the arche because bodies are warm. Fire was the paragon of warmth during his time.
Thales came to the different conclusion that water was the arche based on moisture (H2O).
"Little is known about his life, and the one book he apparently wrote is lost. His views survive in the short fragments quoted and attributed to him by later authors."
Can you point me to the quotes regarding his inference on the warmth of bodies etc?
I think it is possible that is an inference merely attributed to him by later authors.
In any case the historically earlier Purusha/Prakriti doctrine has a real logical basis.
Either later authors described the arche symbolically as fire or water for example or else they were mistaken.
If mistaken it could be that the earlier insights had become distorted or perhaps they came up with their own similar but wrong ideas independently.
The flaw in the reasoning is to suppose that because X and Y are opposites, the rest of A-Z must fall in between X and Y. But they don't. Water and fire don't get you gold, magnetism or radioactivity.
I don't know whether the ancient Greeks knew about magnets. They did know about precious metals and lightning, but not gravity or inert gases. The atomists came closest with their atoms swerving in the void. But that still didn't account for energy. Now we know all the fundamental particles and forces have fields, and spacetime is a manifestation of gravity.
Firstly, my argument has a foot in both camps - ancient greek thought and modern science; time traveling between the two eras if you will. In terms of modern science, fire is burnt hydrogen but in terms of grecian science, water is the opposite of fire.
:fire:
Quoting Pfhorrest
" :fire: "
(Besides, "when we die", "we" cease becoming all together - "cold" or whatever. :roll: )