On the unity of the elements of nature in Empedocles (original) (raw)
Related papers
Empedocles not only considered the existence of the four 'classical' elements as the cause of the beginning of the world, but he also supported the view of their uni cation, which results in the creation of the imaginary world of the Sphere. According to Empedocles, the Universe existed in the state of the Sphere before the explicit presence of the four elements and was the cause for the creation of everything. Moreover, the nature of the Sphere is considered as superior, compared to the four elements. The theory of Empedocles on the fundamental elements of nature and their origin has been examined here, as well as some similarities with the modern scienti c views. It has been concluded that both the philosophy of Empedocles and modern scienti c research seek to uncover and explore the underlying unity of the natural world, which is not perceivable by the human senses.
Empedocles not only considered the existence of the four 'classical' elements as the cause of the beginning of the world, but he also supported the view of their uni cation, which results in the creation of the imaginary world of the Sphere. According to Empedocles, the Universe existed in the state of the Sphere before the explicit presence of the four elements and was the cause for the creation of everything. Moreover, the nature of the Sphere is considered as superior, compared to the four elements. The theory of Empedocles on the fundamental elements of nature and their origin has been examined here, as well as some similarities with the modern scienti c views. It has been concluded that both the philosophy of Empedocles and modern scienti c research seek to uncover and explore the underlying unity of the natural world, which is not perceivable by the human senses.
Table of Contents Anna Marmodoro: Empedocles’s metaphysics 1 Oliver Primavesi: Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle and the Pythagorean Tetractys 5 John Palmer: Elemental Change in Empedocles 30 Patricia Curd: Powers, Structure, and Thought in Empedocles 55 Catherine Rowett: Love, Sex and the Gods: Why things have divine names in Empedocles’ poem, and why they come in pairs 80 David Sedley: Empedoclean Superorganisms 111
Aristotle, Empedocles, and the Reception of the Four Elements Hypothesis
Chelsea C. Harry & Justin Habash (Eds) Brill's Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought., 2021
In this examination of the four elements hypothesis, 'we find a convincing survey of the reception of this very successful cosmological conception along with the promising idea that understanding this reception demands that we distinguish between the four-elements hypothesis and Empedocles’ four-elements hypothesis.' https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2021/2021.09.34/
Empedocles, On Nature 1.273-287
Mnemosyne
This article presents a new, complete edition of Empedocles, On Nature 1.265-290, in particular lines 1.273-287 or a (ii) 3-17 of the Strasbourg papyrus of Empedocles, P. Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665-1666. The edition is based on two new supplements to section a (ii) grounded on doxographic testimony. These new supplements confirm that the passage is devoted to cosmology, specifically the relation between place and the elements. That in turn provides a reliable framework for a reconstruction of the remaining lines. More controversially, the reconstruction gives new grounds for rejecting the controversial variant reading συνερχόµεθα, ‘we come together’, found in two or perhaps three instances in the papyrus. If the content of the passage is consistently cosmological, these new variants must be no more than scribal errors.
Empedocles' Big Break: Pre-Socratic Cosmology and The Big Bounce
Sapiens Ubique Civis, 2021
This paper endeavours to demonstrate that certain strands of ancient and modern cosmological thought are not as dissimilar as one might initially believe. In doing so, it will examine two accounts of the fundamental nature and origin of the universe-one put forward in the 5th century BCE by the Pre-Socratic Empedocles, and one favoured by a faction of 21st Century CE physical cosmologists. After said parallels are highlighted, there will be some speculation on how Empedocles may have arrived at such conclusions two and a half millennia ago, followed by a defence of him being classified only as an ancient poet.
Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his commentary in Phys. 157.25–161.20
Steps, 2024
The present study attempts to show what influence a commentary can have on the formation of ideas about a preceding philosophical tradition. A case in point is Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s “Physics” and on fragments of Empedocles’ poem. The selected passage, though small in size, is quite remarkable in terms of content and the way Simplicius deals with it. With regard to content, we are dealing here with one of the fundamental problematic plots of Empedocles’ philosophy about the alternate rule of Love and Strife. But Simplicius adds to this his own view of Empedocles’ philosophy, dictated by his desire to harmonize the views of all the pagan philosophers and place them within a single consistent scheme. Simplicius wanted to counterpose something to Christianity, which was gaining in strength, and to show that all Greek philosophy developed along a certain path and contains no internal disagreements. On the one hand, Simplicius has preserved for us very valuable material — fairly lengthy sections of the text of Empedocles’ poem. On the other hand, wishing to implement his program, Simplicius chose those fragments of the poem that fit well into it. Therefore, the question arises whether we should take into account the context in which the fragments are quoted, or simply extract from the general body of the commentary those fragments of Empedocles’ poem that we need and consider them independently?