It is generally believed that the beginning of modern natural science lies in the natural philosophy of ancient Greece, and that the rational spirit of Greek philosophy made science possible. So what, exactly, was distinctive about the speculative reason of the ancient Greek philosophers? And what significance does tracing those features have for the development of modern science?
The specialist in the history of ancient science, Professor Lloyd, believes that the two important characteristics that make ancient Greek natural philosophy unique are “the discovery of nature” and “rational critical and debating activity.”[1]
By “the discovery of nature,” Lloyd means “learning to distinguish ‘nature’ from ‘the supernatural,’” recognizing that natural phenomena are regular and governed by certain causal relations—that is, “setting God aside”[2]. However, although Lloyd argues that “although theological thought often appears in their cosmology, supernatural forces do not play a role in their explanations,” his interpretation still seems vague—what, after all, is “the supernatural”? That is a modern term, and for many ancient Greek philosophers, the cosmos was itself divine; they never drew a clear distinction between natural forces and divine forces.
The so-called “rational critical and debating activity” is indeed important. Yet such activity was equally lively in ancient China and ancient India, so why was science conceived only in ancient Greece? Lloyd does not clearly identify the distinctive feature of Greek philosophy as the origin of science.
Collingwood believed that the two views established by the Greek philosophers were indispensable prerequisites for any “natural science” — first, that there are things that are “natural”; second, that things that are “natural” constitute a single “nature.”[3]
Here, the word “nature” refers to its original ancient Greek meaning. According to Aristotle, it means “the essence of things that possess within themselves the source of motion”; nature is “the source of motion and change”[4]. Unlike Lloyd, who sets “natural” against “divine,” Collingwood sets “natural” against “artificial.” And the second idea is that the Greek philosophers believed all changes in all things follow the same order, so that we may make certain assertions applicable to the natural world as a whole.
Yet in ancient China, Laozi and Zhuangzi had also already pointed out the distinction between nature and artificiality, and were even more firmly convinced of the wholeness of the natural world. So why was science not born there? Collingwood pointed out the features of the rational spirit of ancient Greece, but still not quite clearly enough.
The great physicist Erwin Schrödinger also pointed out two important characteristics of ancient Greek natural philosophy in a lecture more than half a century ago: first, the belief that the world is knowable and can ultimately be understood; second, the use of a perspective that places the subject in the isolated position of an observer and thereby “objectifies” the world.[5]
Schrödinger’s summary is a useful supplement to the previous two philosophers: Lloyd emphasizes the opposition between nature and the supernatural, while Collingwood emphasizes the “singularity” of order; what they really mean is precisely that “nature is intelligible.” In addition, distinguishing nature from the artificial is one manifestation of the “objectifying” perspective.
Although Laozi and Zhuangzi also believed in the existence of the Dao and in its uniqueness, in their thought the Dao was unspeakable and elusive. In ancient Greece, however, philosophers firmly believed that the Dao was knowable—that is an important difference between ancient Greek philosophy and other ancient philosophies.
In the Physics, when Aristotle analyzes the number of “first principles,” he says: “The principles cannot be infinite in number, for if they were infinite, existence would be unknowable.”[6] — Aristotle uses the claim that “existence cannot be unknowable” to refute the idea that the principles are infinite; but why must existence be knowable? Aristotle does not give a detailed argument. In fact, “knowable” is less a deduction within Aristotle’s philosophical system than the original conviction that led him to devote himself to philosophical speculation in the first place.
At the end of the Timaeus, Plato also says that the cosmos itself became a visible living being, “…it is a visible god.”[7] Here, “visible” means “intelligible”; Plato praises this world as “an intelligible god, supreme in greatness and goodness, in justice and beauty.”[8] This is utterly different from the “god” of modern Western thought, which is closely associated with concepts such as the supernatural and the unknowable.
Like modern people, the philosophers of ancient Greece also overestimated human cognitive ability. Yet modern people’s arrogance has plunged humanity into crisis—a crisis of the environment and a crisis of the spirit. Technology, whose power expands without limit, has made the earth ever smaller, but the “distance” between neighbors has grown ever greater; human beings know more species than at any previous time, yet species extinction is occurring faster than ever; people work harder than in any earlier age, yet understand less than ever the purpose of labor; people live longer than in any previous age, yet are less clear than ever about the meaning of living; people can explore the nature of matter more than at any previous time, yet understand human nature less than ever… Is this the fault of “science”?
The fault does not lie with science, but with our having forgotten the original pursuit of science! Teacher Wu Guosheng has pointed out: the rational spirit that science today upholds is not the ancient Greeks’ sound reason, whose sole purpose was “freedom,” but rather “technical reason,” whose only standard is “utility.” Technical reason is infinite reason, yet also one-sided reason, because it abandons the dimension of reason’s “internal end.” It is a reason of purposeless, infinite expansion.[9]
For what do we do scientific research? For what do we explore nature? For modern people, the purpose of science is to bring practical technology and improve material life; exploring nature is for conquering nature and obtaining resources from it. These, though seemingly clear in purpose, actually lose their direction.
By contrast, scientific research in ancient Greece seems to have had no “purpose.” Aristotle said: “Clearly, we do not seek wisdom for any other advantage; rather, because human beings are free, living for their own sake and not for the sake of others, we recognize philosophy as the only free discipline and investigate it deeply, for this is the only discipline established for its own sake.” “The desire to know is human nature.”[11]
This pursuit without a “pursuit” is precisely the most exalted. Aristotle said: “Among disciplines, those able to know the ultimate end toward which each thing necessarily tends are superior to those subordinate disciplines; this final end, in the particular case, is the ‘good’ of a thing itself, and in the general case, the ‘greatest good’ of the whole universe. All the above should be assigned to one and the same discipline; this must be a discipline that studies principles and causes; and what is called ‘good’ is also what is called ‘end,’ which is one of the causes.”[12]
Plato also said: “We should trace this divine cause in all things, for the sake of the happy life demanded by our nature.”[13]
The pursuit of food and sex is animal nature; scientific spirit is by no means a manifestation of greed. Human nature is to seek freedom and aspire to the sublime, and true scientific spirit embodies a pursuit that springs from the essence of humanity. Schrödinger put it well: “I was born into such a situation—I do not know where I come from or where I am going, nor do I know who I am. This is my situation, and yours as well; each of you is the same. Every person is in such a situation, and will always remain so. This reality can give me no answers. We eagerly want to know where we came from and where we are going, but the only observable thing is the environment in which we find ourselves. That is why we so urgently and exhaustively strive to find answers. This is science, scholarship, and knowledge; this is the true source of all human spiritual pursuits.”[14]
Notes:
[1] G•E•R• Lloyd: Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle, trans. Sun Xiaochun, Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, 2004, p. 7
[2] Ibid., p. 8
[3] Collingwood: The Idea of Nature, trans. Wu Guosheng. Peking University Press, 2006, p. 36 (margin p. 30)
[4] Aristotle: Physics, 200b12
[5] See Erwin Schrödinger: Nature and the Greeks, trans. Yan Feng, Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, 2002, pp. 82–84
[6] Aristotle: Physics, 189a14
[7] Plato: Timaeus, 92C
[8] See the translation in G•E•R• Lloyd: Early Greek Science, trans. Sun Xiaochun, Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, 2004, p. 71.
[9] Wu Guosheng: The Science of Freedom, Fujian Education Press, 2002, p. 3
[10] Aristotle: Metaphysics, 982b26–28
[11] Ibid., 980a22
[12] Ibid., 982b8ff.
[13] Plato: Timaeus, 69A
[14] Erwin Schrödinger: Nature and the Greeks, trans. Yan Feng, Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, 2002, pp. 96–97
References
Collingwood: The Idea of Nature, trans. Wu Guosheng. Peking University Press, 2006
[Ancient Greece] Plato: Timaeus, annotated and translated by Xie Wenyu, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2003
[Ancient Greece] Aristotle: Physics, trans. Zhang Zhuming, The Commercial Press, 1982
G·E·R· Lloyd: Early Greek Science, trans. Sun Xiaochun, Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, 2004
[Ancient Greece] Aristotle: Metaphysics, trans. Wu Shoupeng, The Commercial Press, 1983
[Austria] Erwin Schrödinger: Nature and the Greeks, trans. Yan Feng, Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, 2002
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply