I. Introduction
In the History of Philosophy, we can view that many were trying to answer problems and one of it is the problem of the one and the many. What is this problem of the one and the many? We can relate here how beings are alike and yet are different. For example, James and John are beings. Now with the problem of the one and the many, how come James and John are the same and yet they are also different.
It is fitting to begin with Ancient Greek Philosophy, which originated from the correct realization that there must be One that is common to and connect the Many.
The early Greek philosophers primarily concerned with the problem of the one and the many. They simply stated the problem involves explaining the infinity of things in the universe. We can see that many separate things can be related to single; unifying thing (the One) was some material substance, like water, or air. Later Greek philosophers would conceive of this one thing as something more abstract, like number.
The Problem of the One and the Many is at the very foundation of all human knowledge. It is a problem that has been known for many thousands of years without solution. It is surprising that it is now accepted by many that we can never solve the Problem of the One and the Many, thus we can never directly know what exists, what reality is (what we are).
II. Statement of the Problem
There is one (1) main problem that the researcher seeks to answer in the endeavor namely: How can Reality or Being be one at the same time many?
To understand more the problem presented, it is sub-divided into different questions:
1. How did the problem of the one and the many begun?
2. Who are the philosophers involve in the problem?
3. What are their (philosophers) solutions to the problem?
4. How did they come out with their (philosophers) solutions?
5. What is the difficulty of their solutions?
III. Definition of Terms
Being – is the most abstract of all terms, for it means everything that is; as such Reality is a synonym for Being.[1]
One – refers to the similarity of beings.
Many – refers to the differences.
Monism (from greek μονοσ - monos - one) – is a term that describes any philosophy that denies that there are many separate beings in the universe.[2]
Radical monism – denies all multiplicity and diversity in being as illusion.[3]
Mitigated Monism – does not admit real diversity, but only as modes or parts of a single all-bracing being or substance, not as distinct in their own right with their own autonomous existence.[4]
Pluralism – is the theory that reality is not one or two but many. Pluralism stands in contrast with monism.[5]
Essence – is the attribute (or set of attributes) that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is, and that it has necessary, in contrast with accident, properties that the object or substance has contingently and without which the substance could have existed.[6]
Existence – For Thomists, existence is the act of being as contrasted with essence.[7]
IV. Methodology
This work is primarily a philosophical reflection and exposition of the solutions to the problem of the one and the many. The researcher went through series of research in library and in internet to gather adequate resources and data in order to present in a comprehensive and a careful manner the solutions to the questions stated in the statement of question.
V. Body
Our common experience tells us that we live in a world of many real beings. I am only one of those beings. These beings can be understood according to their different natures, and they come into being and go out of being.
We sometimes compare ourselves with others. We either look for our similarity or our differences. But what we will tackle about the similarity or unity and multiplicity is much different from our everyday concepts.
The problem of the one and the many originated with the Greek philosophers who tried to answer where the world is made of? The first among Ancient Greek philosophers is Thales. He opens out the problem of the one and the many with his novel inquiry concerning the nature of the things. “What is everything made of, or what kind of ‘stuff’ goes into the composition of things?[8]” With this question, we can see clearly that Thales agree that there are different kinds of things and yet he believe that there is the One that all things are similar.
Thales recognizes that the world is not just what it appears to be and asks about its fundamental nature. Change is apparent. Thales asks about the nature of that which endures change.
What is the nature of the underlying substance that goes through changes? The question here raises a metaphysical issue and does so in a way that invites rational investigation rather than mere speculation or appeal to myth and the supernatural. Is his idea must be taken seriously? Yes, although his concept is only in the chrysalis state, the idea: everything is one must be taken seriously. From it, the other philosophers develop the answers of the problem.
Like Thales, his contemporaries and fellow Greek Pre-Socratic philosophers, Anaximander and Anaximines believed that there is the one that all things are similar. But these philosophers have different concept of the One. These philosophers did not really think of the problem of the one and the many but their importance is that they come out with the idea of a thing which beings are similar.
Among the Pre-Socratic philosophers, Heraclitus and Parmenides were the great figure with the problem. They tried to answer the question with their observation and logical argument. Heraclitus answered the problem with his chief idea that “all things in flux.[9]” He defined reality as in constant change. He said that all things change and has no similarity. He tries to answer the problem from his observation. To illustrate his idea, you get two stone and try to observe both. You may notice that the two stones are different from each other. Heraclitus found change itself to be the only thing that was permanent. The search for a permanent material substratum is illusory, he thought.
Parmenides rejects Heraclitus and agrees with Xenophanes on the unity and no changeability of all being. Being is everywhere indivisible and the same, motionless and unchangeable. Reason gives us the only true idea of the world as unchanging being. The senses mislead us in presenting the world as manifold and changing. This view demands an “error theory”, an explanation of the ordinary person’s apparent experience of change and diversity. In our ordinary experience of the world, our senses erroneously place Not-Being on a-par with being. We get our perceptions of individual things by representing them as separated by void. But in reality, there is no Not-Being. He denies the reality of change.
For Parmenides, change is impossible. The very notion is incoherent. This is not just an assumption that Parmenides makes. Nor is it based on observation. Rather, it is the conclusion of a strictly deductive argument, from more basic premises. And it is not only the startling conclusion Parmenides draws. He also holds that there is no coming into existence, or ceasing to exist.
“According to traditional interpretation, Parmenides goes even further, denying that there is such a thing as plurality. On this view, Parmenides denies that there are many things, maintaining instead that only one thing exists.[10]”
This interpretation was no longer universal accepted but still common. It is not clear but they believe that Parmenides thought that this one thing is.
The atomists, such as Democritus (c. 460-360 BC), Leucippus, and Lucretius, did not say that there was one being, but that there was really only one kind of being, the atom (ατομοσ, atomos, individisible).[11]
The atomists like the other pre-Socratic philosophers such as Parmenides and Heraclitus were monist. The atomists use the atoms to answer the problem of the one and the many wherein beings are made up of atom, “small lumps of stuff which may be logically analyzable into parts.[12]” The beings now are one in the case of they are made up of atoms and to explain the differences is that the atoms are in constant movement in different direction.
The pre-Socratic philosophers can be considered as monist or more specifically radical monist. Among them, Parmenides was the major figure of radical monist in the period.
Plotinus, a contemporary of Aristotle, tried to answer the problem of the one and the many with his two-act theory and the doctrine of procession or reversion. In his two-act theory he presented two arguments:
“Two aspects to all things: an ‘inner act’ and an ‘outer act’. The inner act is the substance or essence of the thing. The outer act is a distinct entity; an image or likeness of the inner act.[13]”
In the first argument, he presented the one as the inner act and the many as outer act. For example, the heat is the essence of fire (its inner act) and the heat that flows out from fire (its outer act). We can see that there are different structures or shapes of fire which he calls the outer act.
“Each hypostasis is the complete cause of the next lower one. The lower one emanates from the higher as the outer act of the higher. This accounts only for the existence or "matter" of the lower level.[14]”
This matter is then informed, and the lower hypostasis comes into being, through the act of contemplating the higher one. The characteristics, procession and reversion are non-temporal events. Procession is necessary, not deliberate and not diminishing.
In his two-act theory, his idea is not well accepted but his importance or contribution to the problem was that through his idea the great philosophers develop his idea into a more convincing one.
Let us then move further to a modern philosopher, Spinoza. He defines reality as:
There simply is no other reality than reality as mathematically described: anything which presents itself as "reality" - but which is not mathematically "capturable" - is simply illusion.[15]
From his definition of reality, Spinoza develops a radical monism. As we shall see, his monism will exclude "ordinary reality" as illusory. While this saves him from the Cartesian problem of explaining relation, it is hardly more satisfactory as a philosophy. Those of you with some history of philosophy background might compare Spinoza in this way to Parmenides.
Baruch Spinoza is like Parmenides in his solution. He is also consider a monist but quite different with Parmenides. He is a mitigated monist. He considers the diversity as modes of the one substance or reality.
Another solution to the problem is that of Baruch Spinoza. He contended that everything that exists in nature is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. This reality that he is talking is God and he concluded that the rest are just modes of the Substance.
The most popular solution is that of Thomas Aquinas. We can also include here the concept of Aristotle where it is the basis of Thomas. Thomas answers the problem with his Essence and Existence. In his concept, the one is the existence. We are beings and beings exist therefore we all exist. What unites us is our act of existence and what differentiates us is limiting essence. It is like a stair, the whole stair is the act of existence, what differentiates is the level on each stair. One is different from other level.
The difficulty of the solution of Thomas is the distinction of existence and essence. Much of the philosophers after him have criticized his theory. They would not accept that the existence and essence has a real distinction for the existence makes essence real.
The different solution discuss are just a glimpse of the problem of the one and the many. We can not disregard the Ancient Greek philosophers for their contribution to the problem. Yes, their answers are not satisfactory but from their answers were became the basis of the great philosophers to the problem of the one and the many. Among the solutions above, the most regarded as the popular and question by many is the solution of Thomas Aquinas. He did not actual formulated new idea but he base it to that of Aristotle. He somewhat further elaborates it.
The essence and existence are the best way to explore the content of the intuition of being. Their outside meanings are easy to grasp. Essence is what a thing is, and existence is that it is or that it exists, and what a thing is not the same as that it is. There are two distinct attitudes of mind involved, one when we name something and the other when we assert that it exists.
We distinguish one thing from another and even oppose one thing to another. An elephant is not a carrot, and we don't expect anyone to confuse the two. But we rarely if ever stop and consider the ultimate nature of the “whats” we are constantly making use of.
The problem of the one and the many influence much of other philosophical and theological thoughts. It illuminates the existence of God like what St. Thomas did and it further develops some major philosophical questions.
We may want either answer the problem with radical monism like the Ancient Greek philosophers did, with mitigated monism like Baruch Spinoza did, or with pluralism either radical or mitigated. The problem of the one and the many is one of the most controversial issues in metaphysics from it the other sub-topics in metaphysics exist like God and evil.
VII. Conclusion
In the problem of the One and the Many, Philosophies are monistic, dualistic or pluralistic, and no one point of view has been able to eliminate the appeal of the other positions to some philosophers. This is the difference or division that cut across the classical types of philosophy.
The problem of the one and the many is a question which all the philosophers both from East and West tried to answer. And through our own experiences, we can clearly see that Being is both one and many. All beings are one in the act of existence and they only differ from their essence.
Perhaps, the problem of the one and the many is the central and most important theme of all traditional philosohy.
In the History of Philosophy, we can view that many were trying to answer problems and one of it is the problem of the one and the many. What is this problem of the one and the many? We can relate here how beings are alike and yet are different. For example, James and John are beings. Now with the problem of the one and the many, how come James and John are the same and yet they are also different.
It is fitting to begin with Ancient Greek Philosophy, which originated from the correct realization that there must be One that is common to and connect the Many.
The early Greek philosophers primarily concerned with the problem of the one and the many. They simply stated the problem involves explaining the infinity of things in the universe. We can see that many separate things can be related to single; unifying thing (the One) was some material substance, like water, or air. Later Greek philosophers would conceive of this one thing as something more abstract, like number.
The Problem of the One and the Many is at the very foundation of all human knowledge. It is a problem that has been known for many thousands of years without solution. It is surprising that it is now accepted by many that we can never solve the Problem of the One and the Many, thus we can never directly know what exists, what reality is (what we are).
II. Statement of the Problem
There is one (1) main problem that the researcher seeks to answer in the endeavor namely: How can Reality or Being be one at the same time many?
To understand more the problem presented, it is sub-divided into different questions:
1. How did the problem of the one and the many begun?
2. Who are the philosophers involve in the problem?
3. What are their (philosophers) solutions to the problem?
4. How did they come out with their (philosophers) solutions?
5. What is the difficulty of their solutions?
III. Definition of Terms
Being – is the most abstract of all terms, for it means everything that is; as such Reality is a synonym for Being.[1]
One – refers to the similarity of beings.
Many – refers to the differences.
Monism (from greek μονοσ - monos - one) – is a term that describes any philosophy that denies that there are many separate beings in the universe.[2]
Radical monism – denies all multiplicity and diversity in being as illusion.[3]
Mitigated Monism – does not admit real diversity, but only as modes or parts of a single all-bracing being or substance, not as distinct in their own right with their own autonomous existence.[4]
Pluralism – is the theory that reality is not one or two but many. Pluralism stands in contrast with monism.[5]
Essence – is the attribute (or set of attributes) that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is, and that it has necessary, in contrast with accident, properties that the object or substance has contingently and without which the substance could have existed.[6]
Existence – For Thomists, existence is the act of being as contrasted with essence.[7]
IV. Methodology
This work is primarily a philosophical reflection and exposition of the solutions to the problem of the one and the many. The researcher went through series of research in library and in internet to gather adequate resources and data in order to present in a comprehensive and a careful manner the solutions to the questions stated in the statement of question.
V. Body
Our common experience tells us that we live in a world of many real beings. I am only one of those beings. These beings can be understood according to their different natures, and they come into being and go out of being.
We sometimes compare ourselves with others. We either look for our similarity or our differences. But what we will tackle about the similarity or unity and multiplicity is much different from our everyday concepts.
The problem of the one and the many originated with the Greek philosophers who tried to answer where the world is made of? The first among Ancient Greek philosophers is Thales. He opens out the problem of the one and the many with his novel inquiry concerning the nature of the things. “What is everything made of, or what kind of ‘stuff’ goes into the composition of things?[8]” With this question, we can see clearly that Thales agree that there are different kinds of things and yet he believe that there is the One that all things are similar.
Thales recognizes that the world is not just what it appears to be and asks about its fundamental nature. Change is apparent. Thales asks about the nature of that which endures change.
What is the nature of the underlying substance that goes through changes? The question here raises a metaphysical issue and does so in a way that invites rational investigation rather than mere speculation or appeal to myth and the supernatural. Is his idea must be taken seriously? Yes, although his concept is only in the chrysalis state, the idea: everything is one must be taken seriously. From it, the other philosophers develop the answers of the problem.
Like Thales, his contemporaries and fellow Greek Pre-Socratic philosophers, Anaximander and Anaximines believed that there is the one that all things are similar. But these philosophers have different concept of the One. These philosophers did not really think of the problem of the one and the many but their importance is that they come out with the idea of a thing which beings are similar.
Among the Pre-Socratic philosophers, Heraclitus and Parmenides were the great figure with the problem. They tried to answer the question with their observation and logical argument. Heraclitus answered the problem with his chief idea that “all things in flux.[9]” He defined reality as in constant change. He said that all things change and has no similarity. He tries to answer the problem from his observation. To illustrate his idea, you get two stone and try to observe both. You may notice that the two stones are different from each other. Heraclitus found change itself to be the only thing that was permanent. The search for a permanent material substratum is illusory, he thought.
Parmenides rejects Heraclitus and agrees with Xenophanes on the unity and no changeability of all being. Being is everywhere indivisible and the same, motionless and unchangeable. Reason gives us the only true idea of the world as unchanging being. The senses mislead us in presenting the world as manifold and changing. This view demands an “error theory”, an explanation of the ordinary person’s apparent experience of change and diversity. In our ordinary experience of the world, our senses erroneously place Not-Being on a-par with being. We get our perceptions of individual things by representing them as separated by void. But in reality, there is no Not-Being. He denies the reality of change.
For Parmenides, change is impossible. The very notion is incoherent. This is not just an assumption that Parmenides makes. Nor is it based on observation. Rather, it is the conclusion of a strictly deductive argument, from more basic premises. And it is not only the startling conclusion Parmenides draws. He also holds that there is no coming into existence, or ceasing to exist.
“According to traditional interpretation, Parmenides goes even further, denying that there is such a thing as plurality. On this view, Parmenides denies that there are many things, maintaining instead that only one thing exists.[10]”
This interpretation was no longer universal accepted but still common. It is not clear but they believe that Parmenides thought that this one thing is.
The atomists, such as Democritus (c. 460-360 BC), Leucippus, and Lucretius, did not say that there was one being, but that there was really only one kind of being, the atom (ατομοσ, atomos, individisible).[11]
The atomists like the other pre-Socratic philosophers such as Parmenides and Heraclitus were monist. The atomists use the atoms to answer the problem of the one and the many wherein beings are made up of atom, “small lumps of stuff which may be logically analyzable into parts.[12]” The beings now are one in the case of they are made up of atoms and to explain the differences is that the atoms are in constant movement in different direction.
The pre-Socratic philosophers can be considered as monist or more specifically radical monist. Among them, Parmenides was the major figure of radical monist in the period.
Plotinus, a contemporary of Aristotle, tried to answer the problem of the one and the many with his two-act theory and the doctrine of procession or reversion. In his two-act theory he presented two arguments:
“Two aspects to all things: an ‘inner act’ and an ‘outer act’. The inner act is the substance or essence of the thing. The outer act is a distinct entity; an image or likeness of the inner act.[13]”
In the first argument, he presented the one as the inner act and the many as outer act. For example, the heat is the essence of fire (its inner act) and the heat that flows out from fire (its outer act). We can see that there are different structures or shapes of fire which he calls the outer act.
“Each hypostasis is the complete cause of the next lower one. The lower one emanates from the higher as the outer act of the higher. This accounts only for the existence or "matter" of the lower level.[14]”
This matter is then informed, and the lower hypostasis comes into being, through the act of contemplating the higher one. The characteristics, procession and reversion are non-temporal events. Procession is necessary, not deliberate and not diminishing.
In his two-act theory, his idea is not well accepted but his importance or contribution to the problem was that through his idea the great philosophers develop his idea into a more convincing one.
Let us then move further to a modern philosopher, Spinoza. He defines reality as:
There simply is no other reality than reality as mathematically described: anything which presents itself as "reality" - but which is not mathematically "capturable" - is simply illusion.[15]
From his definition of reality, Spinoza develops a radical monism. As we shall see, his monism will exclude "ordinary reality" as illusory. While this saves him from the Cartesian problem of explaining relation, it is hardly more satisfactory as a philosophy. Those of you with some history of philosophy background might compare Spinoza in this way to Parmenides.
Baruch Spinoza is like Parmenides in his solution. He is also consider a monist but quite different with Parmenides. He is a mitigated monist. He considers the diversity as modes of the one substance or reality.
Another solution to the problem is that of Baruch Spinoza. He contended that everything that exists in nature is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. This reality that he is talking is God and he concluded that the rest are just modes of the Substance.
The most popular solution is that of Thomas Aquinas. We can also include here the concept of Aristotle where it is the basis of Thomas. Thomas answers the problem with his Essence and Existence. In his concept, the one is the existence. We are beings and beings exist therefore we all exist. What unites us is our act of existence and what differentiates us is limiting essence. It is like a stair, the whole stair is the act of existence, what differentiates is the level on each stair. One is different from other level.
The difficulty of the solution of Thomas is the distinction of existence and essence. Much of the philosophers after him have criticized his theory. They would not accept that the existence and essence has a real distinction for the existence makes essence real.
The different solution discuss are just a glimpse of the problem of the one and the many. We can not disregard the Ancient Greek philosophers for their contribution to the problem. Yes, their answers are not satisfactory but from their answers were became the basis of the great philosophers to the problem of the one and the many. Among the solutions above, the most regarded as the popular and question by many is the solution of Thomas Aquinas. He did not actual formulated new idea but he base it to that of Aristotle. He somewhat further elaborates it.
The essence and existence are the best way to explore the content of the intuition of being. Their outside meanings are easy to grasp. Essence is what a thing is, and existence is that it is or that it exists, and what a thing is not the same as that it is. There are two distinct attitudes of mind involved, one when we name something and the other when we assert that it exists.
We distinguish one thing from another and even oppose one thing to another. An elephant is not a carrot, and we don't expect anyone to confuse the two. But we rarely if ever stop and consider the ultimate nature of the “whats” we are constantly making use of.
The problem of the one and the many influence much of other philosophical and theological thoughts. It illuminates the existence of God like what St. Thomas did and it further develops some major philosophical questions.
We may want either answer the problem with radical monism like the Ancient Greek philosophers did, with mitigated monism like Baruch Spinoza did, or with pluralism either radical or mitigated. The problem of the one and the many is one of the most controversial issues in metaphysics from it the other sub-topics in metaphysics exist like God and evil.
VII. Conclusion
In the problem of the One and the Many, Philosophies are monistic, dualistic or pluralistic, and no one point of view has been able to eliminate the appeal of the other positions to some philosophers. This is the difference or division that cut across the classical types of philosophy.
The problem of the one and the many is a question which all the philosophers both from East and West tried to answer. And through our own experiences, we can clearly see that Being is both one and many. All beings are one in the act of existence and they only differ from their essence.
Perhaps, the problem of the one and the many is the central and most important theme of all traditional philosohy.
[1] http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Metaphysics-One-Many-Infinite-Finite.htm.%20March%206, 2007
[2] http://www.hyoomik.com/phi205/pluralism.htm.%20March%207, 2007
[3] W. Norris Clarke, Sj, “Central Problems of Metaphysics” (Manila: Ateneo de Manila University, 2001) p.10.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Harold H. Titus, “Living Issues in Philosophy” (New York: American Book Company, 1953) p. 485
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence.%20March%207, 2007
[7] Harold H. Titus, “Living Issues in Philosophy” (New York: American Book Company, 1953) p. 480
[8] Ibid. p. 310
[9] http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2b.htm.%20March%209, 2007
[10] http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm1.htm.%20March%207, 2007
[11] http://www.hyoomik.com/phi205/pluralism.htm.%20March%207, 2007
[12] A.H. Armstrong, Introduction to Ancient History of Philosophy (Rowman & Little Pub. Inc, 1981) p. 18
[13] http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/mms/handouts/mmsplotinus.htm.%20March%208, 2007
[14] Ibid.
[15] http://www.drury.edu/ess/history/modern/spinoza.html.%20March%2010, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment