Empedocles: Thought Provoking and Existentially Satisfying!

For those of you who were mildly distressed with all this coming-to-be and passing away nonsense, whether you're Zeno and Parmenides and make the distinction based on that which-is and that which isn't, or you're Anaximander revelling in that sin which is coming-to-be, Empedocles should be a sunny reprieve from such unsettling philosophical notions. Why? Because he sees a false dichotomy between that which is eternal and that which is effimeral. In a move that would make modern high school physics teachers proud, he suggests that everything is made up of some mixture of the roots (fire, water, air and earth) and the forces of Love (bringing together) and Strife (hateful force of tearing apart), and that the matter of these are neither created nor destroyed as things come into and out of being; rather, different amounts and mixtures of an ever-existent whole (comprised of the roots, Love and Strife) mix together (or break apart, as the case may be) to create different beings. As such, when a creature "dies," the eternal parts that make it up simply return to the whole and are re-mixed into something new. In other words, everything that is is in some way tied to the eternal. This seems to nicely wrap up the issue of that which-is and that which-is-not, plus the convenience of humans being able to trust their sensory experiences. Again, a nice reprieve, and certainly easier to deal with on an existential level than some of the other philosophers we've studied thus far.

When I Googled Empedocles, this picture turned up. He certainly looks cooler than those other philosophers do.

Considering all these things, there are a few thoughts that come to mind that seem worth discussing. First, while no mention of it is made, Empedocles's use of the roots, Love and Strife to physically make up human beings might be interestingly extended to the use of these fundamental building blocks to form individual human dispositions. In this way, particularly because Empedocles was a physician, perhaps his idea of the roots, Love and Strife can be compared to the four humors, in that the four humors also identify both physical and dispositional characteristics of individuals. Carrying this idea a bit further, Empedocles implies quite often that Love (Aphrodite) is a force of good, versus Strife, which is a force of evil. As such, could the dispositional makeup of a person (particularly their goodness versus their badness) be explained based on the degree to which either Love or Strife participated in their formation? I honestly don't know, though the prospect itself is rather interesting.

Another thought worth pondering is the parallel between Love/Strife and Eros/Chaos. In both cases, there exists one fundamental driving force for bringing the fabric of existence together (Love and Eros), as well as a single driving force for tearing things apart (Strife and Chaos). Perhaps Empedocles has been influenced by Hesiod as well as by Parmenides and Pythagoras.