streetcartoonist

[streetcartoonist]

‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’, Act II, Scene 2, Titania Reposing with Her Indian Votaries, George Romney

[streetcartoonist]

Mountain stream flowing out of the fog - Haute Route Pyreneenne, July 2018

photo by nature-hiking

[streetcartoonist]

I often ask myself how to cultivate a life worth living. How do we carry on in spite of all the chaos and uncertainty? Personally I just tell myself I have no choice but to march on. No matter the circumstance, things will change.

Just keep moving forward

I still dont know how to live the good life but I will not quit.

[streetcartoonist]

Empedoclean Pluralism

Most of the time it is unfair to see someone’s life work as being entirely reactionary to their predecessor, but the pluralists are uniquely reactionary. The entirety of their belief system is a response to the Eleatic rejection of change and the world of flux as portrayed by Heraclitus. Until then, the dominant world view in Greek philosophical circles was that there was a substance called the arche that differentiates into everything you can see. The Ionians disagreed on what this substance was or how it became everything else, but it is clear that Parmenides vehemently disagreed with him.

The exact views of Parmenides are unknown and the scholarship behind his work is surprisingly contested. There are several views on what he actually advocated for, but his central criticism of change is not one of those contentious points in Parmenidean scholarship. Put simply, Being is and consequently Being cannot not be. The idea that if something exists that it must continue existing is the central assumption of Parmenides. It leads to his rejection of change because if something were to change then its previous form would have to cease to exist and the new form would have to come into being, which is impossible. The traditional reading of Parmenides then argues that he thought the world was an unchanging sphere, an eternal Being that would never cease to be or ever change. That everything exists in a single undying moment. The short story is that people agreed with Parmenides that things don’t change, in the way that the Milesians advocated for change, and rejected the idea of an arche, thus rejecting monism, but they were not keen on thinking that we exist in a homogenous blob and that everything we know is a lie. This partial acceptance of Eleatic philosophy is where the pluralists come onto the intellectual scene. This week we are going to be highlighting one of them, Empedocles.

He is a lot like Pythagoras in the sense that he was a man that is now shrouded in legend and has a lot of myth and ridicule tied to him. Most famously, there is an apocryphal story that he jumped into Mt. Etna in order to destroy his body so people would think he was whisked off to heaven and became a god. The story also goes that he left his slipper on the mountain which exposed his rouse. This legend is almost universally rejected as a malicious rumor spread by the thinker’s opponents. But Empedocles would certainly have liked to be thought of as a god. His supporters sincerely advocated that he was able to raise the dead and perform miracles. He allegedly was expelled from the Pythagorean cult and was banished from his home in Sicily. The likely truth was that he was heavily influenced by the Orphic mystery or Pythagoreanism, was politically active in supporting democracy, and that he left Sicily to never return. It is common in the secondary sources to mention that he was banished by his political rivals (those who opposed to democracy). His writing style is similar to Parmenides in that he wrote in hexameter and is often cited as a poet. However, unlike Parmenides his work is divided into two starkly different poems instead of a poem with different sections and he did not invoke a goddess. There is also no reason to think as much about Empedocles’s choice of writing style as you would Parmenides, because Empedocles did not claim divine revelation. Empedocles was a poet and wrote in response to Parmenides which could sufficiently explains his choice of using hexameter.

Empedocles wrote two poems that have only survived in fragments, and we likely have less than a quarter of the original work. However, from these fragments and other ancient sources addressing his work, we have an idea about what his views were. The commentaries written in the 20th century, such as A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, talk far more about his scientific poem titled On Nature. As you may have noticed this is the same title that Parmenides titled his work. Empedocles’s On Nature according to Russell is clearly a scientific work where he outlines his metaphysics and view which we now know as pluralism. The second poem written by Empedocles was religious in nature and is titled as Purifications, which is an obvious reference to the Orphic mystery religion. Russell does not discuss the second poem much but does state that Empedocles’s religious views were similar to the views of the Pythagorean school. From reading various commentaries it is apparent that Empedocles’s scientific poem was more influential and more widely discussed. In it the pluralist view of the world is laid out.

Pluralism is a lot like monism in that both belief systems advocate for the existence of substances that are eternal and original. In the Milesian school, all that there is springs from the arche through various processes of change. In Empedocles’s pluralism there are four original and eternal substances called roots. In addition to having more than one original substance, Empedocles believed that these substances did not change. The idea that the original substance does not change, cannot change, is due to influence of Parmenidean monism on the ancient world. It is unclear if Empedocles was extending the ideas of Parmenides which is what a predicational monist reading would indicate or if Empedocles rejected the ideas of Parmenides because their final derivations were unpalpable, such as the notion motion is impossible, which would be in line with a strict monist reading.

Empedocles had an explanation for how a small number of original substances called roots could result in the perceived diversity of matter that is evident by sense perception. He advocated that the roots were earth, air, fire, and water and that these substances would either mix or separate to form everything else. This belief was likely another response to Parmenides in that it advocates the world is as it is perceived rather than it being contrary to what it seems. The use of a process to explain the diverse reality we live in is probably influenced by the Milesian school, which in several instances argued that the world is formed by processes. It could be said that advocating for multiple roots was just a way to work around the Parmenidean challenge to change so that ancient thinkers could justify a belief in a world that seems to change. It is important to emphasize that Empedocles would say that he does not believe that things change, he would say that he thinks everything is a combination of eternal unchanging substances that are either separating or mixing.

In Empedoclean pluralism, the separating and mixing process has a mystical element to it. He refers to the process as Love and Strife or untranslated as Philotes and Neikos. Philotes and Neikos are the Romanized names of personified deities in the Greek religion. They are not only forces that are as eternal as the roots themselves, but they are literal Beings. Neikos or the Niekea represent strife or conflict that causes people to move away from each other but in this system of viewing the world, it represents the force that causes the roots to separate from each other and move to their purer form. Philotes in mythology is the living embodiment of love and friendship, here Philotes is Love the force that causes the roots to mix and become intertwined.

Empedocles viewed that reality was a sphere, no doubt another reference to the Eleatic school, and that this sphere was in a constant cycle of being dominated by either Love or Strife. During the cycle, one of the forces would almost completely occupy the sphere while the other force was on the outside. He advocated that humanity was likely born during a time when the sphere was full of Love, and the roots were becoming more intertwined. The movement of the forces, like the roots, is an eternal and unending process. It could be said that Empedocles was at least in some sense advocating a teleology, the idea that history has a distinct direction or pattern, and in some ways that opinion would be correct. However none of the primary or secondary sources I have read point this out, so it would be more conservative to assume that the idea of a teleology came later and could have been influenced by the Empedoclean cycle of love and strife.

Thank you for reading and please feel free to comment your responses or suggestions!

Suggested readings

Early Greek Philosophy – John Burnet

Greek Philosophy: Thales to Plato – John Burnet

The History of Western Philosophy – Bertrand Russel

History of Philosophy – William Turner

A History of Philosophy, volume 1 – Frederick Copleston

[streetcartoonist]

The First Philosopher

Western philosophy began in Ionia during the sixth century BCE. The exact cause of this is not known and perhaps it won’t ever be. However, there is some information known about the area and speculation about what may have contributed to what is called the Ionian Enlightenment. Ionia, in particular Miletus, was at the crossroads of the ancient world. The educated elites in Miletus would have come in contact with Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian ideas. At the time Persia was a threat and would eventually conquer the region under Cyrus the Great during the mid-sixth century BCE. Despite the Persian being seen as an enemy, it would naive to assume that their ideas and culture did not influence the region. The Babylonian contribution to Milesian intellectual life was primarily their accomplishments in astronomy while the Egyptian contribution was primarily in geometry. It is imperative to keep this in mind when analyzing the Milesian school, that this was a place that regularly came into contact with foreigners and that the latest and greatest accomplishments in science were available to them.

In order to understand the magnitude of the Milesian school, consideration of the religious climate of the time is important. However, this complicated because some of the religious views that are more popularly known about Greek religion do not apply to the Ionians. For example, the cult of Dionysius was absent in Ionian culture. The Homeric poems portray the religious views of people living in Ionia, and the Odyssey is understood to be a product of Ionian culture. Although the Milesian philosophers do contain some supernatural elements, the most notable aspect about their ideas was how they strived to explain the world in terms of natural phenomena. In a time when even educated people thought the Earth was flat or even a cylinder, it is a remarkable achievement to think that maybe the gods aren’t responsible for the diversity of matter that is evident. The central discussion of the Milesian school surrounded this topic, in light of how much things change in the world what were they originally and how did they get to their current state.

Thales was born in Miletus during the end of the seventh century BCE and rose to prominence during the sixth century BCE. He is often referred to as the first western philosopher and the founder of the Milesian school. It would also be appropriate to refer to Thales as a scientist. In the ancient world he was famous for predicting an eclipse, which has helped historians discover what time he actually lived. Recall that the central question of the Milesian school is what substance the world is composed of and how does this substance transform into other substances. The significance of such a question was that it attempted to explain the nature of matter in scientific terms. This original thing in Greek was termed the arche and some contemporary authors will use the German Urstoff. Both terms could be understood to mean first principle or original thing. The Greek term, arche, however has a divine meaning attached to it, the Greeks believed that the arche was sentient and was also the ruler. The arche willfully differentiated into other things and that whichever substance was the arche would dominant throughout the world. It was for this reason that Thales thought the arche was water. Thales reached this conclusion because he noticed that living things needed water and that everywhere he went he could find sea shells, he concluded that at least at some point everything was covered in water.

Anaximander, a student of Thales, also supported the idea of an arche. Anaximander also like Thales was a scientist and is alleged to have been a cartographer. He thought the Earth was a cylinder with a hollow center, which is unlike Thales who thought the Earth was flat. Anaximander also had a different conception of what the arche was exactly. He thought it was something called the apeiron. Apeiron is a word that does not readily translate into the English language, but it could best be understood to mean the indefinite. The apeiron is what the elements originated from and Anaximander thought that this thing was not like anything else. The arche in his mind was not a specific thing and it is also translated as the boundless. It could even be said that it is inappropriate to call the apeiron a substance. The apeiron does however differentiate into definite substances such as air, water, fire, and earth. The idea of the four elements did not predate the Milesian school and to analyze them in the context of that would be inappropriate. It is also noteworthy that the apeiron was not the same concept as aether, which is attributed to Aristotle. The apeiron like Thales’s water was also considered divine and most scholars take the liberty to emphasize how the apeiron is a level of abstraction higher than the water described by Thales. Anaximander does try to provide evidence for his belief by stating that if the arche were an actual substance then it would be dominant and excess of it.

Anaximenes, who is the third and often last philosopher mentioned in the context of the Milesian school, had his own conception of the arche. Anaximenes argued that the arche was air and he had devised an explanation for how air became the other elements. He argued that if air could condense into a cloud and then finally into rain, then it could condense further becoming a solid (earth). He also argued that if a liquid could evaporate or a solid could sublimate into a gas then it could go further and become fire. The reasoning behind his idea of the arche is considered to be an accomplishment in and of itself. Anaximenes encapsulates what most contemporary writers note about the Milesian school, that they strived to explain the world around them without referring to religious explanations. Anaximenes was far more popular in ancient times than Anaximander and some writers think that people in the ancient world were less willing to accept the abstract idea of the apeiron or that people were more attracted to Anaximenes because he had a system of reasoning behind his belief that the arche was air.

The Persian conquest of Ionia occurred during Anaximenes’s lifetime or shortly afterward and this event caused a migration of Ionians to Greek colonies further west of Anatolia (Turkey). Philosophers in southern Italy such as Pythagoras spoke Ionian Greek and were well aware of the discussions that the Milesian school started.

Suggested Readings and Sources:

All of these sources are available online free

Early Greek Philosophy – John Burnet

Greek Philosophy: Thales to Plato – John Burnet

The History of Western Philosophy – Bertrand Russel

The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers – Diogenes Laertius, translated by C. D. Yonge

Theaetetus – Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett

Metaphysics – Aristotle, translated by Joe Sachs

Suggested Lectures:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAYxecbGotUzdE4F5IMBgxN2o-biiRjGi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To2JwmTp3X4

[streetcartoonist]

The Triangle Cult

There once lived a man who was a religious leader, a mystic, a mathematician, and a founder of a political movement who became an almost legendary figure within his life time. This man of course is Pythagoras, and he did all of these things through the founding of the Pythagorean School in what is now southern Italy. Specifically, the school was founded in a city called Croton and this was the epicenter of Pythagoras’s philosophical career. Despite this, he was born in Samos which was a city in Ionia.

Samos was a commercial rival to Miletus and much of the same societal pressures that informed what we know about the Milesian school also apply to Pythagoras. Definitively little is known about Pythagoras or what his disciples actually did or believed. It is well established that Pythagoras was born in Samos and he left for Croton after a disagreement with a local tyrant. However according to legend, Pythagoras met Thales of Miletus who told him to travel to Egypt.

 In Egypt Pythagoras discovered his love of mathematics when he marveled at the size and architectural wonder of the pyramids. Also, according to legend, he was in Alexandria when the city was captured by Persians and he was taken prisoner. While he was imprisoned by the Persians, he was brought to Babylon. The Persian captors allegedly were so amazed at his brilliance that they made him a teacher and eventually let him go. When Pythagoras returned to Samos, he found that the city had changed, and he went to Italy for a new life. Personally, I agree with Bertrand Russel that this is likely false. Without a doubt Pythagoras came into contact with Egyptian, Persian, and Babylonian ideas as well as being steeped in the Homeric and Hesiodic mythology. He was also likely aware of the ideas and theories of the Milesian school. Unlike Thales, Pythagoras believed the earth was round which might lead one to think he was more influenced by Egyptian science than his predecessors. The discovery is sometimes attributed to him but it is more likely he learned it from the Egyptians.

Another cultural trend that definitively influenced Pythagoras was the Orphic mystery religion which is a spin off of the Dionysian cults. Orphism was an ascetic movement and likely a reaction to the wildness of the cult of Dionysius. The movement was centered around a creation myth involving Dionysius. The story goes that Zeus had an affair with Persephone which made Hera jealous. Zeus also proposed that the baby should be the ruler of the universe, this was too much. She gave the baby to the Titans who devoured him. Some versions of the story exclude Hera and say that the Titans acted in their own accord. Athena saved the heart of Dionysius and gave it to Zeus. Zeus then swallowed the heart and struck the Titans with a lightning bolt. Dionysius was reborn and the ashes of the Titans formed humans. This gave humans a dual nature, part Titan and part Dionysian. The Orphic religion centered around this dualism and focused primarily on purification rights. The Orphic believed in reincarnation and their ultimate goal was to break free from the cycle of rebirth to be purely divine (Dionysian). Burnet and Russel agree that this belief was independent of the Hindu concept of reincarnation.

Some important things to consider are that the Orphic view of Dionysius is different than what people in the cult of Dionysius thought about him. The beliefs of this group also centered around a poet who likely did not exist named Orpheus. Orpheus died and descended to the underworld where he learned all of this but he was later resurrected. Orpheus taught that the purification rites of the cult would purify a person of their Titan aspect and they would saved. The Orphic concept of reincarnation and breaking free from the cycle of death and rebirth is centered around salvation from the evil Titan nature that was inherited. This is different from the Eastern conception of reincarnation which is not focused on salvation but specifically with the Buddhists it is centered around enlightenment.

The Pythagorean cult was also centered around purity and believed in reincarnation. There is a great deal of debate as to what the rules of being a member of this society were, despite not knowing exactly what they were the Orphic concept of purification is likely the origin of this. Burnet in his work Greek Philosophy: Thales to Plato indicates that Pythagoras also put Apollo at the center of his pantheon rather than Dionysius. It was this religious movement along with the scientific accomplishments of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Persians that provide the framework for understanding the ideas of the Pythagorean school. Bertrand Russel calls Pythagoras one of the most important men in history and the shear number of references to him by the Socratic era philosophers alone is enough to corroborate this claim. When analyzing a figure from history with no surviving works such the Milesians or Pythagoras we must focus on how often their contemporaries make references to them and what they are saying.

 Pythagoras is particularly noteworthy in this respect because he started a movement that was incredibly secretive and tight knit. So much so that it would be improper to discuss his ideas independent of his school. Given that the inner workings of the Pythagorean community which are not specifically known, many historians and commentators argue that anything they produced should be viewed in light of the community rather than the individual. The Pythagoreans were progressive for their time as they included women and some legends indicate that Pythagoras learned what he knew from the Oracle at Delphi. A single phrase that has been ascribed to Pyhtagoras incapsulates what people often attribute as the Pythagorean belief system.

“All things are numbers”

The Pythagoreans are unique this respect because at the time mathematics was not centered around arithmetic. The ancient conception of mathematics was centered around geometry and shapes, so the decision for this group of people to focus on numerical values was a departure from the norm in its own right. Even though Pythagoras and his followers likely did not discover the Pythagorean theorem, it is sometimes argued that the formula was their discovery. They solved for all possible right triangles that could ever exist. The Egyptians likely knew how to find the size of a hypotenuse on a triangle but did not have a numerical formula for doing so. Readers must consider that the number system we currently use did not exist in the minds of the Greek people, who likely did not even have a concept of zero. Arithmetic, especially at the level of the Pythagoreans, is extremely difficult when one does not even have a zero. The Pythagoreans also attributed numerical values to things such as music, which at the time tuning instruments and notes were done by ear and not by specific values. Because of this, the eight stringed lyre is sometimes attributed to the Pythagoreans.

There are many ideas and accomplishments attributed to Pythagoras but given that he was believed to be a divine man capable of preforming miracles even in his own lifetime, it is difficult to get facts about this person. I definitely feel as though this article is incomplete and that there is much more things to consider when talking about Pythagoras. Along with Thales and the Milesians, I hope to make continual references to Pythagoras in hopes of paining a more complete picture of this legendary thinker.

Suggested Readings and Sources:

All of these sources are available online free

Early Greek Philosophy – John Burnet A History of Philosophy Volume 1 – Frederick C. Copelston Greek Philosophy: Thales to Plato – John Burnet The History of Western Philosophy – Bertrand Russel The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers – Diogenes Laertius, translated by C. D. Yonge Phaedo – Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett Metaphysics – Aristotle, translated by Joe Sachs

[streetcartoonist]

Xenophanes

Xenophanes was born in Colophon, a city in Ionia, during the sixth century BCE. The dating of his life is not exact however in his surviving fragments he referred to the Greco-Persian war as an event that occurred in his life while Heraclitus referred to him the past tense. This gives us a window of when he probably lived. Like other Ionic Greek speaking people, he would have been aware of the Milesian school and foreign sciences such as Egyptian geometry and Babylonian astronomy. However, these are not the topics he is known for addressing. When Xenophanes was relocated, he went to what is now Sicily and later to what is now southern Italy, Elea to be exact. This is rather similar to what Pythagoras did and Xenophanes did in fact live around the same time that he did. Despite these similarities, there is no reason to think that the two thinkers met. Pythagoras was famous within his own life time and it would be fair to argue that at least Xenophanes knew of him. It is also important to recall that the Orphic mystery religion was influential in this region at the time. Little is known about Xenophanes and there is some speculation as to why that is, Aristotle did not like Xenophanes and said he was more of a theological theorist rather than a student of nature. Despite the fact that Xenophanes’s fragments indicate his interest in topics such as nature. Aristotle basically said he wasn’t a philosopher and was incredibly dismissive of his ideas. Xenophanes was incredibly unpopular in his own time as well, when you consider what his main tenants were this does not come as a surprise.

Imagine rural Texas, a place where there are people who are quite religious and really enjoy sports such as football. The culture of some towns in rural Texas revolve around the church and the local sports teams. Now imagine the kind of person who not only mocks these beliefs but claims his beliefs are better. This is the kind of person that Xenophanes was, and I hope the analogy sheds light on just how breath takingly unpopular he was. Xenophanes was an ardent critic of Greek religion and in some respects, he was a critic of the Greek ideal and culture at large. Comparing Greek athletics to Texan’s love of football does not do justice to how much the Greeks valued athleticism. Achilles, the hero of the Iliad, was often considered the ideal person and he was a warrior as well as a talented athlete. Odysseus was also a remarkably gifted archer. The high value on athleticism went beyond the poems of Hesiod and Homer, by the time of Xenophanes the ancient Olympics had been occurring for over two hundred years. I cannot emphasize enough how important religion and sports were in Greek life. Xenophanes criticized all of this.

Although Aristotle would say that Xenophanes was not a philosopher, he would not contest that he was a theologian and a poet. Philologists have been able to accurately determine if a fragment is a quote directly from Xenophanes or merely a paraphrased segment because of his poetic writing style. Xenophanes tended to write in hexameters and iambic trimeters. Directly from the fragments we know that the chief criticism that Xenophanes had of the Greek mythos was that people’s gods look a lot like they do. The gods of the Ethiopians looked Ethiopian, the gods of the Thracians looked Thracian, and the Greek gods sure looked Greek. He went so far as to claim that if horses had gods that they would look like horses. The significance and meaning behind these statements were not lost to the Greek people of the day. They understood that Xenophanes was questioning the validity of their beliefs. It could even be argued that he meant the poems of Hesiod and Homer were not ancient truths but the ramblings of ordinary men.

Xenophanes himself is reported to have been a monotheist, and from this, contemporary scholars have concluded that his criticism of the epic poets was not rooted in a criticism in supernatural belief but particularly anthropomorphizing God. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out that Xenophanes took particular issue with the gods being portrayed as profane and having flawed character like ordinary men. The idea that the supreme deity of the universe would cheat on his spouse and then lash out in anger at getting caught was especially profane. Xenophanes believed that God was good and above the flaws of humankind.

Although many writers state that Xenophanes was a monotheist, this is a contested point in history. Despite the fact that it would have been unusual for a Greek to have been a monotheist, monotheism was not an unusual idea at this point in history. The Persians who were typically practitioners of the Zoroastrian religion were monotheists, and an Ionian like Xenophanes would have a higher likelihood of encountering their ideas. Also, the second temple era of the Jewish religion was developed at this point, the diaspora in Babylon ended with Persian Emperor Cyrus the Great’s reign, and the second temple period was prominently monotheistic. Some alternatives to the monotheistic view of Xenophanes would be that he supported a particular brand of Greek religion or that he was an atheist. I think that it is unlikely he was an atheist because later philosophers were atheists and writers of the time took significant note of it. The absence of mentioning that Xenophanes was an atheist would indicate that he is not an atheist.

Despite the contention in scholarship over the exact beliefs of Xenophanes it is clear that his outright criticism of Greek culture was new for his time and paved the way for future thinkers like Socrates or Epicurus whose beliefs went further in thinking critically about what people believed. The Milesian School, Pythagoreanism, and the beliefs of Heraclitus each marked a departure from normative thought in their day. But none of them went so far as Xenophanes.

[streetcartoonist]

Anaxagoras

Discussions of ancient philosophy often invoke mental images of men with beards wearing white robes and challenging the status quo. People may even think of Athens when they imagine what ancient philosophical discourse must have been like. From our previous discussions you would know that a lot of the philosophical discourse was occurring in Ionia and what is now southern Italy. So far, the only mention of Athenian philosophy was the likely apocryphal tale of an older Parmenides meeting a young man named Socrates. It also goes without saying that philosophy to this point has been profoundly influenced by religion which deviates from the typical conception of philosophers.

Anaxagoras is different from other pre-Socratic philosophers in that the more iconic image of an antagonistic Athenian is a near perfect representation. He was born in Ionia under Persian occupation and he flourished during the period of time between the Greco-Persian war and the Peloponnesian war. He moved to Athens and where the majority of his teaching occurred. He taught Pericles, an important leader in Athenian history, and Archelaus who may have taught Socrates. Both of these students will be the topic of later discussion.

He was heavily influenced by what could be called the more rationalistic teachings that were popular in Ionia. Out of the Milesian school, Anaximenes is considered the most influential thinker on Anaxagoras. A close second would be Parmenides because much like Empedocles, the philosophy of Anaxagoras is a reaction to the Parmenidean view of monism. Scholars are not sure if Empedocles or Anaxagoras were aware of each other’s work. Traditionally Empedocles is considered to have written first but none of the scholarship indicates that Anaxagoras got his ideas from Empedocles. Despite both being put into the category of pluralists, they have incredibly different views. Anaxagoras’s contemporaries found that the most controversial aspect of his views were his ideas about astronomy. He was banished from Athens after being charged with impiety for teaching that the sun and moon were objects rather than divine beings. He taught that the sun was a fiery rock and much larger than the area around Athens. There is some evidence that he was actually banished for his political ties to Pericles, but other scholars indicate that he was apolitical and was actively uninvolved in day to day life. Still, he could have been banished for his association with Pericles whether or not he was a political figure.

In the generations shortly following Anaxagoras people were more focused on a different aspect of his philosophy, specifically Plato and Aristotle talked about his ideas about Mind (Nous). In the Platonic dialogues Socrates mentions that the idea of Mind is impressive and interesting but that he was disappointed that Anaxagoras did not do much with the concept. Socrates specifically says that Anaxagoras did not go so far as developing a teleology based on mind and Aristotle stated that Anaxagoras only used Mind as a mechanical device. In Anaxagorean pluralism, Mind holds a very special position and Guthrie mentions that the conception of an incorporeal mind was a serious breakthrough in Greek thought. Anaxagoras thought that initially the universe was a homogenous mixture and that Nous (Mind) set the world in motion with an initial push. Guthrie compares this to the first cause argument that is common in Christian circles today. The homogenous mixture differentiated after Mind gave an initial push giving order to the world we live in.

Anaxagorean mixture is based on Parmenidean ideas such as that things cannot come into reality or cease to exist, and that there is no empty space. Anaxagoras seemed to be very interested in seeds which in Greek (Romanized) is called Sperma. His conception of a seed is different than the English word because it includes eggs and sperm cells, although he would not have used such exact terms Greeks did know that semen was necessary for babies. The idea is that inside a seed would be everything necessary for a tree or life to grow. He stated that everything is in everything, and the homogenous mixture was like a seed. Consequently, when Mind caused that mixture to differentiate nothing is being created or changing because it is just a rearrangement of something that already existed. Anaxagoras may not have used such an explanation to describe his ideas and Barnes in his work Pre-Socratic Philosophers offers more notes on the translation of Anaxagoras’s ideas. Anaxagoras is mentioned in contemporary scholarship as being particularly difficult to understand and some writers such as Bertrand Russell outright do not mention a great deal of his ideas, specifically Russell does not mention seeds when most other works do.

Despite some confusion over certain concepts and their significance, it is clear that Anaxagoras would not have understood his work through the lens of particles. He thought that things could be infinitely divided and that there were no discrete things. You cannot hold a pure piece of gold or a cup of pure blood because everything is in all things. In the context of reading other thinkers, this is the most important idea to take away. Anaxagoras thought that everything was a homogenous mixture and that Mind only allows arrangement or order of the mixture, which would explain why we perceive a diverse reality despite the fact that there can be no change. It is particularly important to remember this when reading the Atomist philosophers.

Elaborating on Anaxagoras’s immediate influence, he had two students that are mentioned by historians. Pericles who was an Athenian politician who will be discussed in a later article. Archelaus was also a pre-Socratic philosopher and is credited with continuing Anaxagoras’s intellectual legacy after his banishment. There is almost no information about his life and work outside of a few brief mentions by historians such as Diogenes Laertius and Pseudo-Plutarch. He is sometimes credited with being Socrates’s teacher, but Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle do not give him credit for this. I have not found any primary or secondary text that elaborates on Archelaus, but if I find one then I will make a post amending this.

Thank you for reading and feel free to leave a comment.

Suggested readings

Early Greek Philosophy – John Burnet

Greek Philosophy: Thales to Plato – John Burnet

The History of Western Philosophy – Bertrand Russel

History of Philosophy – William Turner

A History of Philosophy, volume 1 – Frederick Copleston

Pre-Socratic Philosophers – Jonathan Barnes

A Brief Illustrated History of Philosophy – Anthony Kenny

A History of Greek Philosophy, volume 2 – W. K. C. Guthrie

[streetcartoonist]

Archive III

Heraclitus was a philosopher who was called the Riddler due to his writing style and penchant for speaking in paradoxical quips. Such as the way up is the way down, in reference to pathways on a hill. His work has only survived in about a hundred fragments that are best described in Burnet’s Greek Philosophy: Thales to Plato and The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russel. Heraclitus lived in Ephesus during the early fifth century BCE according to Burnet he likely lived during that time due to the fact that he refers to Pythagoras and Xenophanes in the past tense. This reference was made in fragment 16, when he famously jabbed that knowing a lot of things does not make a person wise. Some important background information about Heraclitus would be that he lived in Ephesus during Persian occupation when many other Ionians had fled the region. He was also well aware of the Orphic religion that likely influenced Pythagoras, the Milesian school, and of course Babylonian astronomy and Egyptian mathematics. He was also influenced by oracles. John Burnet, a classics scholar, states that Heraclitus writes in a style that can be described as oracular. The Oracle of Delphi, which is near Corinth, is the most widely known oracle by contemporary readers. Oracles are a complex idea that are prominent in Greek mythology. Basically, the Oracle of Delphi referred to a woman who can commune with the gods and had visions. The oracle would reveal these truths in a very cryptic series of phrases which is why Burnet would describe his work like this.

Despite the fact that Heraclitus is often referred to and discussed in the context of Parmenides this comparison may not be appropriate. Heraclitus lived before Parmenides and consequently did not write or think in the context of his beliefs. For this reason, it is important to not consider Parmenides when thinking about Heraclitus’s beliefs. The fragments and general analysis of his beliefs can also be misleading in that it gives the impression that he had several unrelated beliefs such as the theory of flux, fire as arche, the unity of opposites, and the Logos. These concepts must be understood in terms of each other and not as a list of random inklings because they were each part of the worldview of Heraclitus. If a student wants to understand a particular idea, then they need to know how it relates to Heraclitus’s overall philosophy. From the primary and secondary sources, it is clear that the Milesian school at least had a significant influence on the kinds of questions that Heraclitus was answering in his work. Recall that the Milesians were concerned with what is the world is made of and how does it work. They were material monists, believing that the universe was composed of a single material called the arche that became differentiated into all of the various things that we observe.

Heraclitus thought that the original and dominant element, arche, throughout the world was Fire. It may be tempting to think that this belief was a reaction to Thales and Anaximenes, a simple attempt to say something different for the sake of saying something different. But this is incorrect, the idea of the four elements being air, water, earth, and fire came later and Heraclitus, like Anaximenes, had real world observations to justify his belief. He argued that fire was the arche because like fire, all living creatures need to consume things to live. A fire consumes wood and turns into ash while animals consume other animals and plants turning them into waste. This waste is then consumed by other organisms and further transmuted. In the mind of Heraclitus, fire represented and was a literal example of the constant change that he observed. This brings us to the next concept, the theory of flux. The most famous Heraclitan fragment is fragment 41, famously and often erroneously stated “You cannot step into the same river twice”. The idea is basically that as a person walks across the river, there is new water rushing across and thus the person is not stepping into the original river twice. There is also an additional element to this statement, that the person walking across is also constantly changing it would be appropriate to say the river is never stepped into twice by the same man. Likewise, the theory of flux applies to both every individual thing and the universe as a whole.

This state of constant change probably contributed to why Heraclitus argued that opposites are the same. In fragment 95, he argues that falling asleep and waking up are the same thing. Another example would be dawn and dusk. The unity of opposites is often talked about in the context of things or states that oscillate such as temperature and the road on a hill. The road going down is also the road going up. He would also have applied this to more profound events in a person’s life such as being born and dying. Although Heraclitus would not have known this, oxygen reflects the unity of opposites. Oxygen is the thing that kills and the thing that gives life because it is responsible for cellular respiration which gives energy, but it is also responsible for oxidation reactions which eventually kill. This applies to fire as well which provides comfort and pain. The theory of flux and the argument that fire is the original element become more cohesive as a larger concept once the reader starts to consider how the unity of opposites applies to both of them.

Logos is a particularly famous Greek word because of its appearance in the Book of St. John in the Christian religion as well as high school English classes when talking about rhetoric. However, this fame has led to common misconceptions. This word is often translated directly as “the Word” but that does not explain what it means and the idea that is just refers to an appeal to facts is incomplete. Throughout the suggested readings, logos has been translated a number of ways such as conversation, account, word, and reason to name a few. But it is easier to grasp when understood as a concept rather than something that just needs to be translated. Logos could be understood as a sense of reasonableness, or a spirit of order. Like a well-managed factory humming along, everything has its place and its role. Heraclitus believed in Logos, that there was truth and that the universe made sense. In rhetoric, this understanding of Logos would mean that an appeal to Logos would really be an appeal to order or rationality. In the context of his other beliefs, it could be said that they are the Logos. That when Heraclitus spoke, he meant that his beliefs reflected how the universe worked. Of course, it must be conceded that it is next to impossible to know exactly what a writer thought when they spoke an ancient language and their work only survives in fragments. Logos in my mind is the most puzzling concept because it is a word with multiple translations and the Christian religion may have gotten the word from the Greeks, but it is undeniable that they also transformed its meaning further.

Although Heraclitus was a misanthrope and said that all the Ephesians should just kill themselves. He was not popular in his time and Parmenides’s philosophy is often seen as a reaction to his own. Despite this he has been greatly influential, notably he is referred to in Nietzsche’s Ecce Homo and Heidegger’s Being and Time section 7 which coincidentally discusses Logos.

[streetcartoonist]

Fuck Reddit, I'm moving to Tumblr

[streetcartoonist]

Archive II

Parmenides is without a doubt the most influential Pre-Socratic philosopher and his ideas serve as a dividing line in the Pre-Socratic period. He lived in what is now southern Italy after Heraclitus and likely a generation or two before Socrates. According to Plato, an elderly Parmenides and a middle-aged Zeno of Elea met Socrates when he was a young man in Athens. Jonathan Barnes and Bertrand Russell hold the opinion that this meeting likely happened, despite whether or not Parmenides actually traveled to Athens the fact that Plato went so far as to mention Parmenides met Socrates is only a slight indication of how important Parmenides was in Plato’s mind. The fact that he wrote a dialogue where Parmenides won a debate against Socrates should say the rest.

Parmenides according to tradition was a student of Xenophanes and was a Pythagorean, he even built a shrine to Pythagoras. Historians strongly doubt that he was a student of Xenophanes but having lived in the same region, Parmenides was likely aware of his beliefs and writing. The same could be said of Heraclitus, and many historians of philosophy write about Parmenides in the context of Heraclitus. The views of Parmenides are often portrayed as a reaction to Heraclitus, which will be written about further in the article. Recall that Pythagoras was prominent in the same region and that the Orphic mystery religion, as talked about in a previous post, was greatly influential on the displaced Ionians living in the area. There is also some evidence that Parmenides was more influenced by the epic poems from Ionia and the religious practices of Attika than his predecessors. Although the prominence of Parmenides is not universally agreed upon, the great degree to which Parmenides deviates from his predecessors is mentioned in every secondary source I have read.

The ideas of Parmenides are preserved mainly in his poem titled On Nature which is available with extensive translation notes in Jonathan Barnes’s The Pre-Socratic Philosophers and John Burnet’s Early Greek Philosophy. Unlike the Milesian school and Heraclitus, Parmenides wrote in hexameter instead of prose, and Pythagoras does not have any surviving works. Although Xenophanes wrote in hexameter too, his status as a philosopher is contended and he was not well regarded by his contemporaries or immediate predecessors. The poem is often broken into three parts; a prologue sometimes referred to as the “proem”, the Way of Truth, and the Way of Opinion. The names and parts of the poem are not settled, and some sources refer to the sections differently, but these three parts are the most common way of dividing the poem. The prologue is where the Attic influence becomes apparent because Parmenides asserts that a goddess revealed to him the information in the poem and the goddess refers to him as a young man, despite the fact he was likely not a young man when he wrote this. People who are familiar with the epic poems or the Oracle at Delphi are quick to draw this connection that when the Oracle is revealing something to someone, she refers to them as young man, and the epic poems start with an invocation of a Muse. The use of hexameter is also an additional connection with Greek religion because the epics were written in meter while more profane writings were written in prose.

Barnes also goes out of his way to point out that translating On Nature is difficult. Consequently, it makes sense that there are several different understandings of what the poem means. In general, the use of hexameter and invoking a goddess can be confounding in that we do not know what Parmenides’s intentions for this were. Some writers have stated that the use of Greek religion were allegorical and only speak to how important he thought his own work was. While other writers argue that he literally believed a goddess told him these things, and that Parmenides should be understood as a mystic figure like Pythagoras. Most scholars agree that in the section titled the Way of Truth Parmenides outlines his world view after the experience of speaking with a goddess or with the allegorical view his later more developed views. There is no fundamental description of the Way of Truth but there are a few prominent interpretations of his work. In fact, there are a great deal of interpretations on Parmenides’s teachings and their effect on Greek culture at large. In a later article we will discuss Parmenides as portrayed by Plato and Aristotle.

A more traditional reading of Parmenides that has become to be seen as rudimentary in some circles is the strict monist view. The strict monist view is that Parmenides saw the world as a homogenous sphere devoid of space and time as well as being eternal and unchanging. The argument against change is generally accepted in most interpretations but it is the meaning of this changelessness and how to interpret the other portions of the poem that people disagree about. The argument against change is why many scholar including Plato often portray Parmenides as an antagonist to Heraclitus.

Parmenides’s argument against change is as follows

1.) Being is and not Being is not, this means things exist or they do not there is no in between

2.) Something cannot come from nothing

3.) Something that exists cannot not exist

4.) You cannot know what is not

5.) In order for something to change its current form must cease to exist and the new form must come into being; which is impossible.

Barnes is quick to point out that contemporary readers need to consider that Parmenides did not have calculus or the idea that something can be immaterial. Parmenides did not believe in empty space because that would constitute not Being, and in the context of the strict monist view Parmenides did not believe in time, in the sense that time is just the perception of instantaneous change from moment to moment. The strict monist view would hold that all of reality exists in a single moment for eternity and that movement, change, and the plurality of what we perceive is falsehood. The second part of the poem, the Way of Opinion is clearly meant to be representing false beliefs. Which in this interpretation can be understood as representing what Parmenides believed before what he spoke with the goddess or as a polemical passage about his contemporaries. The strict monist view would also result in a person believing that all subsequent pre-Socratic philosophers to be reacting against Parmenides, moving away from monism because they see that it leads to Parmenidean monism.

A shorter description of the strict monist argument would be that Parmenides thought that the arche did not differentiate into other substances because for it to do that it would have to cease to exist and things that exist cannot not exist. As a result, Parmenides believed we existed as a single Being that never changes or differentiates and that what we see is an illusion. This description is coarse and even so, the strict monist interpretation is not the most popular view of Parmenides.

Patricia Curd, an expert on the Pre-Socratic period and professor at Purdue University, advocated the novel view that the poem does not preclude the possibility of their being a plurality of Parmenidean Beings. This view is called predicational monism which does affirm that Parmenides viewed change is impossible for the same reason that a thing cannot cease to exist and consequently cannot take on new forms. Curd states that Parmenides did not view the universe as being a single undifferentiated thing, he just thought that things don’t change randomly, Parmenides would see a rock and think that is a rock, it cannot cease to be a rock or pop in and out of existence. Predicational monism results in the view that the later Pre-Socratics such as the Pluralists and the Atomists were affirming and supportive of Parmenides. I agree with Curd because I don’t think Plato would think so highly of someone that made such absurd claims and took an idea so far that everyone abandons the core principle of it. It is more likely that Parmenides offered a critique of the idea that matter changes and that resulted in people abandoning the idea of an arche.

Parmenides is often viewed as viewed as a turning point in the Pre-Socratic period because of how later philosophers started to move away from monism in response to his ideas. Whether it was in objection or in affirmation is unclear, I strongly encourage you to do your own reading and explore some of the additional interpretations to decide for yourself. The ideas of Parmenides will be revisited in subsequent posts.

[streetcartoonist]

Archive I

In the course of human events it becomes necessary to walk across the threshold and to take an action that would otherwise be forbidden. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon he knew it meant he would have to march on Rome because he had broken the law and defied the laws of the Senate. It is debatable whether what he did was right or wrong but there is no argument against the fact that humanity was forever changed by that decision. Today humanity has watched a different cross a line that once was unimaginable. Allegedly He Jiankui has used CRISPR to edit the germline cells of an embryo to produce the first genetically modified human animal (Specter).

He Jiankui is a professor at The Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen and his experiment was completed at a hospital, both have denounced the experiment while the hospital denies it ever occurred (Holland and Wang). Jiankui selected parents where the male partner was infected with HIV and the mother was not infected, the experiment was to use CRISPR-cas9 to silence the CCR5 gene and thus confer immunity to HIV infection. It is important to note that there are already methods to prevent paternal transfer of HIV through “washing the sperm” prior to IVF or artificial insemination, this fact brings into question the true intentions of the experiment. He Jiankui claims that the purpose was not only to prevent natal infection at conception but also to prevent infection later in life (Normile). However scientists have also pointed out there are methods besides germline gene editing to prevent HIV infection, which reasserts the question of why Jiankui did this. Germ-line editing has been criticized because it permanently changes the genetic material of the patient affecting them and any subsequent offspring, it is currently a hotly contested issue. There were quite a few things wrong with what He Jiankui did. Foremost, silencing the CCR5 gene not only makes one immune to HIV it makes a patient more susceptible to influenza and West Nile infection (Kuo). This information combined with the alternative forms of treatment make the action unethical. Jiankui violates the agreement between patient and physician; the patient will provide money and trust the doctor while the doctor will act in the best interests of the patient. Jiankui did not act in the best interest of the patient because preformed a procedure that was not only unnecessary, it was harmful. Currently, there is great risk in using gene editing and the system is not accurate. The Human Genome was only just sequenced in April 2003 and humanity is only just beginning to understand genetics. This is why human gene editing is currently banned, because a physician cannot be sure of how the treatment will affect the patient (US government, NIH). Jiankui’s procedure is allegedly effective and he claims he treated more than 1 set of offspring and that there are more gene-edited babies (BBC). The action if effective is harmful, but there is so much more possible harm when a gene other than CCR5 is silenced. Not only were the actions of Jiankui a violation of trust and the breach of an agreement, the way in which he carried out his actions was wrong. In 2015 there was an international moratorium on completing germline editing of the genome in viable embryos, and Jiankui violated that agreement. I think that this action is the most egregious aspect of what he did. The foundation of civilization is when a group of people get together and make an agreement about what is socially acceptable and what must not be tolerated. Jiankui not only acted against the best interest of the patient, he went against the wishes of the larger society. He also conducted his research in secret and has not released the specific data of how he completed his experiment (Holland and Wang). Jiankui’s actions have embarrassed his colleagues and according to some, place into question the credibility of Chinese researchers (Holland and Wang). Gene editing is currently illegal in China and Jiankui is missing. There are even doubts as to whether he accomplished what he said he did at all. If Jiankui is lying then this would negate concerns about patient well-being but the fact that he violated an international agreement and embarrassed his university remain. Even if Jiankui has accomplished what he claims the secretive nature of his work is unethical because it prevents improvement and cross-examinations of his work. Jiankui’s actions are morally wrong because his procedure harms patients, has a high risk of failure, and violates the trust of the community.

Although there are many things wrong with what Jiankui did there is still a lot of potential good in his actions. If he comes back from being missing and releases his data to the public then maybe a more reliable method of germline gene editing could be made known. If Jiankui has found a way to prevent a lot of the possible problems involved with gene editing and made the procedure more reliable then it could be used to treat other disorders. The deletion of the CCR5 gene to prevent HIV may be harmful and unnecessary but there are other genes that are better understood. For example some life threatening disorders have been isolated to specific genes such as Huntington’s disease and these patients that would certainly die without treatment would perhaps be better candidates for gene editing than otherwise healthy child (HDSA). The selection of the CCR5 gene was a poor decision on Jiankui’s part because HIV is already preventable and there are negative side effects. If Jiankui has an effective method then the potential for it to do good is much higher. An additional use for deleting genes would be to delete the SRY gene to cause an XY individual to develop as a female, this would be the basis for sex selection and likely the first “designer baby” feature but it would be a good thing for regions where there are not enough female offspring (IUPUI). Also there is not an equivalent feature to cause an XX individual to develop into a male specimen. I personally think that there is little good in what Jiankui did outside of the possibility of having an effective and safe method for gene deletion, excluding the consequences of deleting a particular gene. However I would acknowledge that a person who would advocate for germline editing would say that what he did was good because it will help to remove the taboo behind gene editing. Gene if perfected could be used to remove almost all diseases and make transplanting technologies 100% effective through changing the way the immune system identifies antigens. There is even the possibility of enhancing the human animal, magnifying positive traits and discouraging negative traits from being expressed. Particularly a utilitarian would see the risk posed to Jiankui’s patients as minimal because people can live prosperous lives with the CCR5 mutation and the potential benefits of gene editing would far outweigh the harm. However a deontologist would argue that stating “maybe someday something good might happen because of this” does not excuse the actions of Jiankui and that future violations should be discouraged.

I think that germ-line editing of the human genome should be legal someday after the problems have been worked out and our understanding of human genetics increases. Currently the procedures involving CRISPR are not reliable enough to ensure the overall wellbeing of the patients involved and even if the gene selected is effectively silenced or amplified, the technology to know what would happen as a result does not exist. This objection is of course tentative and is only dependent on the technology of the present day. In the future when technologies have improved and these problems are no longer around then it would be not only good but necessary to use germ-line editing not only as a therapeutic treatment to remove genetic disorders but as treatment to improve the human animal by removing risk factors and increasing traits that promote overall health such as a strong immune system. I think the benefits in not having genetic disorders and improved features such as a stronger immune system are self-evident; one would prefer to live without deformities and would also prefer to have better overall health. A person would not want a predisposition to obesity, to balding, or even to stupidity. I think that the question “what is good or better” in response to the statement “we should make people better” is just logical noise; each society has a conception of what a person ought to be and even in spite of that cultural notion of good, people know for certain that obesity is a health risk and it is better to not be obese and to not be predisposed to obesity. As a result, the rest of this paper will be dedicated to addressing other objections to germ-line editing, such as repugnance, class struggle, and child autonomy.

Repugnance or the wisdom of repugnance is a category of arguments based on the individual argument made by Savulescu which essentially states that we ought to listen to our gut reaction against something. That there must be something to an initial gut reaction of disgust. For example, pedophiles are seen as disgusting in society, and I personally find them to be disgusting. Savulescu would say that this disgust is justified and there is wisdom behind it. I think this is an emotional appeal and not a valid argument, specifically because collective disdain has been in error before; people used to generally think that gay relationships and interracial relationships were disgusting, but people today see such sentiments as primitive and prejudiced. If a person is willing to argue that we should not do germline editing because of personal feelings of disgust, then I think the same person will need to provide further reasoning because such logic can be used to justify slavery and racism which other people find disgusting. A central argument against germ-line editing states that because this technology would give the wealthy an unfair advantage. This advantage would be rooted in the fact that wealthy people have better healthcare and that eventually the rich would become a different species due to repeated gene editing. I would counter that denying people healthcare such as gene editing because not everyone can have it is an absurd argument because it is not applicable in other situations. A person would not argue that people should not have clean water or vaccines because they are not universally accessible. In contrast, people are encouraged to get vaccinated and there are continuous measures to increase access to vaccines. It would be equally valid to encourage gene editing for those who can access it while further access to other people is increased. There is no need to stunt the growth of a few people because one is struggling, it makes more sense to help the one that is struggling catch up. People argue that gene editing is a violation of the autonomy of the child, this again is not a valid argument and like the class struggle argument is an example of special pleading. People would not let a child make decisions such as whether or not to get vaccinated, and people in our current legal system do not deny access to abortions on the basis of not being able to ask the fetus. I would argue that the opposition does not have enough evidence to argue that germ-line editing requires a certain level of consent that vaccines and abortion do not require. Especially considering that in the case of abortion, the potential child dies and their future opinion is not considered. Likewise, the possibility of a child growing up and being opposed to germ-line editing should not be considered when determining whether or not to use germ-line editing. The entirety of the opposition rests in the idea that germ-line editing is different than a vaccine or any other medical procedure. This is categorically false, when a person considers epigenetics and how even lived experience can change the genetic of organism and that all actions are permanent changes to the organism it becomes clear that germ-line editing is not different.

In conclusion, what He Jiankui did was unethical because he did not act in the best interest of the patient and went against the wishes of the community. Despite this, if he actually developed an effective method of gene editing that removes some of the procedural concerns then in some ethical systems he may be justified. Overall, I am in favor of germ-line editing because of the potential to improve the lives of people and that the opposition arguments are based on the idea that this medical procedure is significantly different than other medical procedures but the opposition does not provide an adequate explanation of how this is different.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/he-jiankui-and-the-implications-of-experimenting-with-genetically-edited-babies

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/crispr-bombshell-chinese-researcher-claims-have-created-gene-edited-twins

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/29/work-on-gene-edited-babies-blatant-violation-of-the-law-says-china

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/health/china-crispr-gene-editing-twin-babies-first-intl/index.html

https://www.genome.gov/12011238/an-overview-of-the-human-genome-project/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-46368731

https://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k2humancsomaldisorders.html

https://hdsa.org/what-is-hd/

[streetcartoonist]

[don’t bother reading this,I’m intoxicated]

It is weird to be writing on Tumblr again for the first time in over six years. I have been writing for eight years and I still haven't quite figured out how to do it well. The act of putting words out there is very cathartic for me, it allows me to acknowledge what I am going through. A kind of reminder that my problems are just as real as anyone else’s. I tend to write more when I have something on my mind.

I am having one of those days. 

This week, I failed on an important practical in my internship. There is a good chance that I am going to be dismissed before the end of the year and this makes me feel sad. I don’t care about the internship itself or that it means I won’t graduate. I am perhaps more bothered by how inconvenient I feel. I distract myself from my own thoughts with meaningless goals and tasks. The task will consume me and I will let it define myself, but then I feel empty when I fail or when I accomplishment.

The task has been completed, but I don’t feel any different. 

I feel like my whole life is like the last ten minutes of a lecture or a sermon, when you just want it to end. But you can’t leave, it would be rude and disruptive. So you just wait. 

[streetcartoonist]

I am all that I am and you are who you are

Brooding Muse

[streetcartoonist]

That's all I have to say about that

Forrest Gump

[streetcartoonist]

Honestly, this is the belief I wish more people held. The hostility between Christians and Atheists, any conflict too, is pointless. Conflict is meaningless. 

There are no enemies in the discussion of ideas - only friends who hold different ideas.

[streetcartoonist]

Atheism and Religion

Religion does not make you moral

Atheism does not make you moral

Religion does not make you a bigot

Atheism does not make you smart

Not all religious people care about the homosexual debate

Not all atheists are open minded

Not all religious people vote Republican

Not all atheist understand biology

If you are perpetuating stereotypes (that are unfounded and unsubstantiated by evidence) just stop. I am a religious individual, and I am a pacifist. I did not inherit my beliefs. I have a friend who is an atheist, she does not know much about science and blindly accepts things. You're senseless bantering about how religion is evil or how atheists are mean is ridiculous and only reveals your arrogance.