Are They Here Yet!

Are They Here Yet?

An "Alien"

One of the most common modern mysteries mulled over is “Are we alone?” Well the bottom line is we do not know and it is possible we will never know the answer to that.1

Kuhn’s

Flawed Idea

Prof. Thomas Kuhn

One of the most influential books ever written about science is Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.1 This book launched the modern version of the Philosophy of Science and frankly a lot of the Post-Modernist views of Science.

Dumb for God

Creationism

Creationism is without a doubt the most common pseudoscience in the world today and the one that has had and continues to have the most pernicious influence on public education worldwide.

The Nile and Diogenes

Lake Victoria, Lake Albert and the
Head Waters of the Nile



It is extremely unlikely that the overwhelming majority of people have heard about the explorer Diogenes who sometime in the first century C.E. was blown off course in the Indian ocean and ended up in the port of Rhapta on the African coast near, or at modernday Dars es-Salaam in modernday Tanzania. 

Number Games



One of the most fascinating aspects of mathematics is that of unexpected results. For example there is the way things multiply with astounding speed once you start.

Night Descending

Movie poster for Agora

SPOILERS AHEAD!

Recently I saw the movie Agora (2009) directed by Alejandro Amenabar and staring Rachel Weisz as Hypatia, Michael Lonsdale as Hypatia’s father Theon, Oscar Issac as Orestes, Max Minghella as Davus, Rupert Evans as Synesius and Sami Samir as St. Cyril.

The movie takes place in the late 4th century C.E., in the city of Alexandria, then part of the Roman Empire. Hypatia the heroine of this movie is a philosopher and teacher at the University or Mouseion attached to the library attached to the temple of the God Serapis called the Serapeum. Later I will discuss the historical veracity of this movie.

In Hypatia’s class are two students, Synesius and Orestes who are in love with her. Also in love with her is her slave Davus. Tension between Christians and Pagans is rife in Alexandria leading to incidents of violence between the groups. Theon whips Davus when he takes the place of a slave who has a cross in her possession. Hypatia tries to keep peace between the Christians and non-Christian among her students.

Things come to a head when a Christian mob egged on by Cyril, then a priest, start pelting the statutes of pagan gods with filth and rotting vegetables / fruit. The Pagans at the Serapeum egged on by the chief priests and with the approval of Theon arm themselves and attack the mob killing many. The Christians rally and receiving reinforcements drive the Pagans into the Serapeum which they besiege. The pagans take some Christians as hostages. Hypatia pledges to protect her Christian students.

After a short siege the people in the Serapeum are promised amnesty by the emperor, but only if they abandon the Serapeum to the Christians outside. Hypatia and her father with the aid of the various librarians of the library try to save as many books as they can before fleeing. Davus stays behind and joins the Christians. Subsequently Hypatia frees him. The Christians destroy the statue of the god Serapis and then destroy the library.

Shortly before the destruction of the Serapeum Orestes endeavours to court Hypatia and asks her to marry him, she refuses by giving him a cloth soaked with her menstrual blood. Thus establishing that Hypatia as no interest in ever getting married.

During the siege Hypatia becomes interested in the question of does the earth move and starts to reconsider the old abandoned idea that the Earth moves around the sun.

Many years have past and Orestes is now Governor of Alexandria and a Christian, at least nominally. Theon is dead. Davus is a member of a Christian militia group guilty of many outrages against both Pagans and Jews. The remaining non-Christians on the governing city council are being pressured to become Christians. Synesius is now Bishop of Cyrene, and Cyril has become Bishop of Alexandria. Hypatia continues to teach and to research the heavens. In one scene she conducts an experiment and notes that on a moving ship a weight falls as if the ship was not moving.

Cyril and Orestes are involved in a violent power struggle over who actually controls Alexandria and Cyril continues to incite violence in his bid for power. The attacks by Cyril’s militia against Jews incites a violent retaliation that in turn leads to a pogrom against the Jews and many leave the city. Meanwhile Cyril uses Hypatia as a stick to beat Orestes with including stage managing a scene designed to humiliate Orestes after which Orestes gets hit with a rock by a monk in a rioting mob.

Hypatia continues her research on the movement of the planets. Davus is meanwhile getting disillusioned with his overly fanatical friends. Finally Synesius and Orestes plead with Hypatia to become a Christian. She refuses with the line:

You don’t doubt your beliefs. I must!
The night before, Hypatia in a moment of inspiration, concludes that the orbit of the planets is an ellipse and discovers Kepler’s first law of planetary motion.

As Hypatia returns home she is set upon by a mob who take her to the Serapeum, now turned into a Church, to kill her in front of the alter. Davus has tried to warn her but is unable to get to her in time. Helplessly he has followed her to the Serapeum. The mob leaves to gather rocks to stone her with. There is however no escape except the blocked entrance. To save Hypatia the agony of being stoned, Davus suffocates Hypatia to death. Hypatia’s last sight is the ellipse shaped opening in the ceiling of the Serapeum.

Davus leaves never looking back. A brief text records that none of Hypatia’s writings survived and that shortly afterwards Orestes disappeared and that Cyril became St. Cyril.

That is the movie what does history say?

Amazingly the movie is actually quite accurate on many things. For example its depiction of the events that led to the destruction of the Serapeum, which occurred in 391 C.E., is quite accurate. Although in actuallity the desecration that served as a provocation by the Pagans to attack the Christians is not what is depicted in the movie. Also the involvement of Hypatia, Theon, Orestes and Synesius is not historical fact. The picture of Alexandria divided into different religious factions perfectly willing to kill each other, with the Christians in a position of dominance and using that dominance to impose their faith is accurate.1

The order of the Emperor that the Pagans evacuate the Serapeum and it being sacked and then turned into a Christian church is accurate. And yes the Pagans were besieged in the Serapeum after taking some Christians as hostages.2

Hypatia was almost certainly not teaching at this time in Alexandria. It is believed that she was born between 450-470 CE, with the later date more likely. It appears that she started teaching in Alexandria in c. 400 C.E., after the sack of the Serapeum.3

It is unlikely that the Serapeum had much of a library to be destroyed in 391 C.E. It appears to be the case that the library had ceased to exist in the Serapeum due to neglect, deterioration and lack of funds and people removing scrolls by 370 C.E. Although it is possible that some remnants of the former library existed to be destroyed in 391 C.E.4

However it is to the credit of the script writers and director that one of the characters mentions that the main library had been destroyed many years before. The destruction of Library of Alexandria as been alleged to have been caused by the soldiers of Julius Caesar setting fire to it, (48 B.C.E.) by the fighting between the soldiers of the Emperor Aurelian and Queen Zenobia of Palmyra in 274 C.E., the above mentioned attack on the Serapeum in 391 C.E., and by the Arabs in 642 C.E.5

It appears that the fire caused by Julius Caesar’s soldiers may have destroyed some scrolls stored near the harbour only. The main library or Mouseion was apparently completely untouched. It appears that in fact the Mouseion or least the library associated with it was in fact destroyed during the fighting between Aurelian and Zenobia in Alexandria, (274 C.E.). After that the center of learning and research in Alexandria shifted to the Serapeum and its smaller library. As mentioned above it appears that their was little or no library to destroy in 391 C.E., when the Christians took over the Serapeum. The story of the Arabs destroying the library in 642 C.E. is a complete fabrication.6

Hypatia has I indicated above apparently began teaching in Alexandria in c. 400 C.E. Her father Theon, a renowned mathematician was called the “the man from the Mouseion”. Which indicates that part of the Mouseion, from which we get the word museum, still existed at the time. It was probably closed in 391 C.E., at the same time as the Serapeum was turned over to the Christians. For this was also the same time that Theodosius I decreed the closing of all Pagan temples in the Empire and turned over many of them to the Christians.7

Hypatia worked in astronomy and mathematics and was apparently a Platonist, and yes a Pagan. She did teach Orestes and Bishop Synesius of Cyrene. She wrote several commentaries and a text called The Astronomical Canon, which did not survive, along with editing what became the most common version of Ptolemy’s work the Almagast, which was the central text of Western and Middle Eastern astronomy for over a thousand years. So the movie showing her interested in astronomy and math is in fact accurate.8 The whole bit about her discovering Kepler’s first law of planetary motion is sadly almost certainly fiction. It is not however, impossible.8

The story of Hypatia rejecting a suitor by giving him a cloth with menstrual blood on it is true. Although the suitor was almost certainly not Orestes as depicted in the movie.9

Orestes, who was indeed a Christian, did in fact became governor (Prefect) of Alexandria and engaged in a power struggle with St. Cyril who did in fact use Hypatia as a weapon against him. The whole incident in the Church in which Cyril tries to humiliate Orestes, is sadly not an invention. Also the Christian militia that attacked non-Christians along with the violence between Christians and Pagans and Jews is also not an invention. The slave Davus is an invention however.10

Hypatia was in fact set upon a mob c. 415 C.E., and killed. In the movie she is suffocated; in actuality she seems to have been flayed alive and then burned. A rather more gruesome death than the one in the movie. In the movie this is suggested, but they decide to stone her instead.11

The movie telescopes events together and makes Hypatia much younger than she actually was at the time of her death (at least 45). Orestes did indeed disappear soon after and St. Cyril did in fact come to dominate Alexandria.

The depiction of St. Cyril in the movie will probably attract criticism. St. Cyril is considered a Father of the Church and of course a Saint. His involvement in the violence that tore apart Alexandria and led to the death of Hypatia, mob violence etc., is contested. Unfortunately there can be little doubt that St. Cyril was an intolerant, bigoted and power hungry individual despite his sincere faith. It is also sadly true that the scene in movie whereby St. Cyril praises as a martyr to the faith and puts in a church the body of the monk Ammonius, who had in fact been part of a mob that tried to kill Orestes and had in fact thrown a rock that had injured Orestes, really happened. The penalty for an attempt on the life of the Prefect of Alexandria was death. So Ammonius was put to a rather grisly death under torture. This was right after St. Cyril’s attempt to humiliate Orestes. The movie gets that right also.12.

If St. Cyril comes across as an unpleasant individual that is because from our point of view he probably was.

It appears likely that while Hypatia taught some remnant of the library and Alexandria’s position has a center of classical learning existed. With her death it probably vanished along with the any other Pagan philosophers working there.

A more germane criticism of the movie is that the movie ignores largely the positive features of Christianity showing a picture of no-nothing fanaticism. The fact that many of the Christians are depicted as dressed in black while Pagans get lighter colours is too much of a cliché. The scene in the movie of Cyril and Davus giving bread to the hungry is undercut by the bread they are giving being Theon’s. That said the Pagans and Jews are also shown to be capable of intolerant murderous violence. For example during the Pagan attack on the Christians a Pagan Priest is urging a slave to stab and kill a injured man on the ground, in a screaming rage.

The movie relies less on CGI than you might expect and the sets, especially the Serapeum are impressive and convincing. Also convincing is the amazing accuracy and authenticity of the costumes worn, which are not only of the right cut of the time, but unlike most costume epics seem to be made not of modern fabrics but fabrics used at the time.

  Scene from the movie Agora  

The acting is generally just serviceable. Max Minghella as Davus especially seems to be just going through the motions.

Rachel Weisz performance is wonderful. She gives it the gravitas and seriousness that it requires. Given that Rachel Weisz is a very good looking woman, (as apparently Hypatia was also in real life); she acts her role with enough conviction and in a convincing enough fashion to take this Hypatia seriously as an intellectual. With Rachel Weisz’s performance you can believe that you are meeting a genius. The fact is given the still sexist ways women are regarded it takes some effort to overcome the deeply ingrained notion that a women is her looks. Rachel Weisz overcomes it brilliantly.

Michael Lonsdale as Hypatia’s father Theon is the other good to great performance. He is shown as a man exceptionally proud of his brilliant daughter and anxious for her happiness. He is also an old man ill at ease. The world as changed in ways he doesn’t like and so there is in him a great anger. He feels impotent to alter the way the world is going and he lacks his daughter's cultivated sense of intellectual ease and basic serenity. The result is he is subject to dangerous impulsive decisions. Michael Lonsdale gives an excellent performance of a man who hates the way the world is changing and wishes it had not.

The other performances are as said above are merely serviceable. St. Cyril for example is far too much a cardboard villain.

In the end the movie has it right night is descending and the long period of decay that characterized the early Middle Ages in Europe is coming. Learning and the search for knowledge would not reawaken in Europe until the Renaissance. Until then it would take tremendous intellectual effort just to preserve the remnants of Classical knowledge.

1. Canfora, Luciano, The Vanished Library, Vintage, London, 1987, pp. 87, 190-193, Wikipedia, Serapeum, Here, Library of Alexandria, Here, Hypatia, Here, St. Cyril Here.

2. IBID, Serapeum, Canfora, pp. 111-114.

3. Hypatia.

4. Serapeum, Canfora, pp. 137-144.

5. Library of Alexandria, Serapeum, For details regarding those alleged burnings see Canfora.

6. IBID, Canfora, pp. 66-70, 81-99, 109-118, 123-125, 137-144, 183-197.

7. Canfora, p. 87, Serapeum, St. Cyril, Wikipedia, Theon Here.
.
8. Hypatia.

9. IBID.

10. IBID, St. Cyril, Serapeum, Canfora, pp. 87-88.

11. Hypatia, St. Cyril.

12. St Cyril, Serapeum, Hypatia.

Pierre Cloutier

Worlds in Collision
An Annotation on Selected Quotes and Sections
Part I
Two planets colliding

Immanuel Velikovsky, 1895-1979, was one of the most well known, to the public, of modern martyrs to the contemporary “inquisition”. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view this has served to distract attention from Velikovsky’s theories.

The following is a annotated list of quotes and references from Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision, Macmillan and Co, New York, 1950. All quotes are in italics, references are in caps.

p. vii, “Harmony or stability in the celestial and terrestrial spheres is the point of departure of the present day concept of the world as expressed in the celestial mechanics of Newton and the theory of Evolution of Darwin. If those two men of science are sacrosanct, this book is heresy.”

Thus does Velikovsky stake his ground, nothing less than the overthrow of Newton and Darwin and by implication all the science directly or indirectly based on them. It is noted that although Velikovsky did write a work “refuting” quite unsuccessfully, Newton he never got around to a theory replacing Darwin.1

p. vii, “However modern physics, of atoms and quantum theory, describes drastic changes in the microcosm the atom – the prototype of the solar system; a theory, then that envisages not dissimilar events in the macrocosm – the solar system – brings the modern concept of physics to the celestial sphere…”

This is quite simply wrong. Quantum mechanics does not envision the parts of the atom as physical entities. Further the position of an electron in orbit around a nucleus is one of probabilities. No modern day quantum Physicist uses quantum mechanics to describe anything above the subatomic. Neither is there any evidence to support the idea that an atom and the solar system are smaller and larger versions of the same thing.2

p. vii, “If, occasionally, historical evidence does not square with formulated laws, it should be remembered that a law is but a deduction from experience and experiment, and therefore laws must conform with historical facts, not facts with laws”.

Given that Velikovsky must interpret and stretch many texts to construct his “historical facts” and given his concept of mass “amnesia” to explain the obvious fact that mankind did not clearly remember these alleged “historical facts”, why these laws must be modified in accordance with these “historical facts” is dubious. Further if extensive experimentation has indicated that the universe behaves in a certain way the simple fact that something different is reported may all too likely means that the report is in error not the law. Velikovsky seems to have forgotten about the dangers of eyewitness testimony of the “unusual”.3

p. viii “Worlds in Collision comprises only the last two acts of the Cosmic drama. A few earlier acts – one of them known as the Deluge – will be the subject of another volume of natural history.”

Velikovsky never published those works in his lifetime. This was probably fortunate because adding a few more cosmic collisions would have made his cosmic scenario even more dubious.4

p. 5, THE SUN AS NINE PLANETS. NEPTUNE AND PLUTO MAY HAVE SATELLITES.

This is rather picky but firstly Pluto is no longer considered a planet. At least that was what a bunch of astronomers did a few years ago. The statement that Neptune and Pluto may have more satellites that have not been observed yet implies that all known satellites have been found to the other planets. Well with Jupiter having at 15+ and Saturn having 20+ this is simply wrong.5

p. 6, “Mars has a transparent atmosphere…composition unknown.”

Even though scientists at the time weren’t sure what the composition of Mar’s atmosphere was at the time Velikovsky wrote this the general opinion was that it was probably largely carbon dioxide. Velikovsky makes comments later in the book indicating he expects carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.6

p. 6, “The inertia or persistence of motion implanted in planets and satellites was postulated by Newton, but he did not explain how or when the initial pull or push occurred.”

This is incredible. Gravity is an innate property of matter it does not need to be “implanted”. Basically matter by its presence bends space and the bend of space is gravity. More massive objects bend space more than smaller objects which tends to cause smaller objects to fall around more massive objects and under certain circumstances crash into larger objects. Further Newton postulated that objects move until they encounter sufficient resistance to stop them. Velikovsky seems to deny the idea of the inertia. Further given that gravity is an innate property of matter there is no need for the initial “push” or “pull” that Velikovsky seems to want to exist.7

p. 8, “But why should the satellites of Uranus revolve perpendicularly to that plane and some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn in reverse direction?”

Well first of all Uranus rotates on its side and the moons orbit to that unusual plane. Leaving aside why Uranus rotates in this fashion, (the bottom line is we do not know), the 9 moons orbit in nearly circular orbits would seem to indicate that this occurred a very long time ago. Regarding the reverse orbits of some of Jupiter’s and Saturn’s moons how about simple capture of formerly free orbiting bodies.8

p. 11, “…according to all existing theories; the angular velocity of the revolution of a satellite must be lower than the velocity of rotation of its parent. But the inner satellite of Mars revolves more rapidly than Mars rotates.”

Says who? First of all this refers to stable orbits only. Secondly Phobos is gradually spiralling down and will eventually crash into Mars. Much like Triton which orbits Neptune. The price of such an orbit is probable eventual destruction and inherent instability of the orbit. Such an orbit is generally thought of as very good evidence that the moon in question was captured and not formed around the planet it orbits. Note Phobos is composed of quite different material than Mars.9

p. 12, “It is estimated that besides the comets of short periods several hundred thousand comets visit the solar system.”

Here Velikovsky starts his Venus = Comet. Two facts escape Velikovsky in this equation. First Comets are small, 50 Kilometres in diameter and under in size. Second Comets are largely dirty ice and have a very low density. Venus is 81% the size of earth and its average density is slightly less than Earth which has a high density (5.5gm). Velikovsky’s continual comparison of what Comets can do and what “Comet” Venus allegedly did simply ignored this. Note the present idea is that in the outer Solar System outside the orbit of Pluto are Billions of Comets and Comet like bodies. So that millions of Comets have probably visited the inner solar system in the about 4.5 billion years since the earth formed.10

p. 12-15, THE ORIGIN OF COMETS. VELIKOVSKY CLAIMS THAT THE ORIGIN OF COMETS IS UNKNOWN. LOOKS AT IDEA THEY CAME FROM THE SUN OR EMERGED FROM THE GIANT PLANETS.

p. 13, “Another theory of the comets supposes their origin to have been the sun.”

Comets probably are nothing more than the icy remnant debris of the formation of the solar system. Given that Comets are icy rocky bodies their origin from eruptions of the sun or from the giant planets is very dubious, the heat of ejection would have totally vaporized them. In fairness to Velikovsky he regarded the origin from the sun has unlikely.11

p. 16, “…the shell is estimated to be only 60 miles thick…”

p. 16, “The presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals from the core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained.”

Well, Velikovsky does not explain what he means by “shell”. If he means crust the thickness is usually given as about 30 miles on the continental plates and much thinner on the ocean bed. As for iron, when the earth was being formed iron was present through out the material that formed the earth. In the process of forming the materials tended to separate by weight leaving only remnants of iron in the earth crust. There is no need to postulate a migration from the core to the surface to explain iron in the earth crust.12

1. Even the collection of Velikovsky’s unpublished writings contains little of it. See The Velikovsky Archive Here.

2. See Wikipedia Quantum Mechanics Here.

3. See Loftus, Elizabeth, & Ketcham, Katherine, The Myth of Repressed Memory, St. Martin’s Griffen, New York, 1994, Crews, Fredwerick, Follies of the Wise, Shoemaker Hoard, Emeryville CA, 2006, pp. 200-216.

4. For more absurd Cosmic Collisions see No. 1.

5. See Wikipedia Moons of Jupitor Here, Moons of Saturn Here, Moons of Neptune Here, Pluto Here.

6. Weart, Spencer, Venus and Mars, Here.

7. See Wikipedia, Gravitation Here.

8. See Wikipedia Uranus Here, and Moons of Uranus Here.

9. See Wikipedia Phobos (Moon) Here).

10. See Wikipedia Venus here, Earth Here, Comet Here.

11. IBID, Comet.

12. Wikipedia Crust (geology) Here.

Pierre Cloutier

Around Africa according to Herodotus

Some of the most amazing feats of exploration are very poorly known. For example it appears that the first circumnavigation of Africa was achieved some time during the reign of Pharaoh Necho II of the Saite dynasty, (610-595 B.C.E.).1 Herodotus describes the voyage as follows:

For it is clear that Libya [Africa] is surrounded by water except for where it borders Asia. The first one we know of to have discovered this fact was Nechos king of Egypt. After he had stopped excavation work on the canal, which extended from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf, he sent some Phoenicians off on boats with orders to sail around Libya and back through the Pillars of Herakles [Straits of Gibraltar] into the Mediterranean Sea and to return by that route to Egypt. And so the Phoenicians set out from the Erythraean Sea [Red Sea] and sailed the Southern Sea. Whenever autumn came, they would put in to shore at whatever region of Libya they happened to have reached in order to sow seeds. There they would wait for the harvest, and after reaping their crops, they would sail on again. This they did for two years, and in the third, they came around through the Pillars of Herakles and returned to Egypt. They mention something else which I do not find credible, though someone else may: that when they were sailing around Libya, the sun was on their right side as they went.2

Phoenician Merchant Ship

Not surprisingly the above account has given rise to much discussion about whether or not it describes a real event. The consensus seems to be that it does for two main reasons.

First the amount of time given for the voyage, more than two years is realistic given the types of ships available and their limitations. Certainly the added detail of the crews stopping twice to sow crops also rings true. Secondly the detail that Herodotus records only to dismiss it as unbelievable, i.e., the sun being on their right is in fact true. This is true because in the Northern Hemisphere the sun if one is sailing westward the sun would always be on the left in the south. When one crosses the equator, the sun would appear overhead and then south of the equator the sun in the Southern Hemisphere would appear to the right in the north.3

It is in fact the second detail that is most convincing and it is rendered even more convincing in that Herodotus dismisses this as untrue. Apparently because he was unaware of the idea of the Earth having a spherical shape.4

Even in antiquity the above story was doubted by many. For example:

In giving the names of those who are said to have circumnavigated Libya Poseidonius says that Herodotus believes that certain men commissioned by Neco accomplished the circumnavigation of Libya; and adds that Heracleides of Pontus in one of his Dialogues makes a certain Magus who had come to the court of Gelo assert that he had circumnavigated Libya. And, after stating that these reports are unsupported by testimony,…5

The Historian Polybius also expressed doubts:

Just as with regard to Asia and Africa where they meet in Aethiopia no one up to the present has been able to say with certainty whether the southern extension of them is continuous land or is bounded by a sea,…6

Finally the great polymath Ptolemy had Africa joined to Asia! For example see this map made from the coordinates given in Ptolemy’s book.7

Ptolemy’s World Map

Also the whether or not the voyage actually happened has been doubted up to today, for various reasons.

The lack of detail for example, even the name of the Commander is not given. The lack of detail is hardly surprising however given that at the time it is unlikely that much more than a summary report would have been deposited in any archive or that after c. 100 years there would be much recorded except a brief summary and oral reports.

Further in regards to Herodotus; he may have heard details and simply recorded a bare summary of what he heard. We do know that Herodotus did not record everything he heard.8

So it appears that the lack of detail such as a notification of the disappearance of the Great Bear constellation, etc., is not much of a problem, further why then not ignore the telling detail of the position of the sun?

In fact the lack of elaborate detail, and fanciful stories are powerful indicators that the story is likely true. It sounds relatively prosaic and the only detail that Herodotus gives that he considers fanciful is absolutely true! Further the argument that the Pharaoh Necho would never approve of such a speculative venture is completely speculative. The fact is we do not know enough about him to judge what was or was not within his character.9

As for problems such as if they could make the voyage if they lacked a compass? It should remembered that they were following a coast line. On the way south on their west side and on the way north on their east side. This is not all that difficult. Given that sea travel in those days tended to be coast hugging and not a huge amount of cross oceanic travel, and considering that this particular voyage being into the unknown would if anything tend to be even more coast hugging it is not likely that a compass would be necessary to do it at all.10

Some have alleged the voyage is to short. This can be dismissed without further ado. The voyage took over two years, plenty of time even with two stops to grow crops. The idea that the sailors from the Northern latitudes would not have been able to judge when to plant makes them singularly unobservant and they could also ask the locals.11

As for why such a voyage was not repeated at a later date if it was in fact done. It should be remembered that the evidence we have indicates that later attempts to circumnavigate Africa were through the Mediterranean and down the west coast of Africa. There the currents and winds, especially for the vessels used in antiquity made such an attempt very difficult. In fact the Portuguese when they attempted it had great difficulty, because of winds and currents near the African coast. In the end they found that sailing far out into the Atlantic and then at the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope sailing East was the best way to do it. For the ships of antiquity such a voyage was frankly suicidal!12

Africa

The following is a possible reconstruction of the voyage. They probably left in November from a Red Sea port, they would have sailed out of the Red sea and into the Indian Ocean. There the wind and current would sweep them south. Until the Mozambique current caught them and moved them even further south past the Cape of Good Hope. Near by they may have stopped and sowed and harvested some crops, perhaps in May. Circumstances along with their orders would have urged them north, since the currents and winds that eased their journey south would have made any return voyage back up the east coast of Africa in the ships they had extremely difficult.

After the harvest the winds and currents would have helped them north up to the great bend of Africa. Along the Guinea coast they would have encountered winds and currents that were hostile but they could get past those obstacles because they could use oars. Some time in November December they would have stopped in Morocco and sown more crops and after harvesting them returned through the Mediterranean to Egypt after a voyage of c. 2 ½ years!13 They must have been glad to get home.

Of course for both the Phoenicians and Nechos this trip served to tell them that going around Africa for trade or shifting ships was not practical at the time. It also was a feat of sailing that was not duplicated, that we know of, for c. 2000 years. It was simply not practical until the late 15th century.

It is however of interest that even that long ago men were trying out daring feats of exploration and discovery and that man thirst for knowledge is not a modern invention.

1. Herodotus, The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories, Random House Inc., New York, 2007, p. 297-298, Cary, M. & Warmington, E. H., The Ancient Explorers, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1963, pp. 110-119, James, Peter, & Thorpe, Nick, Ancient Mysteries, Ballantine books, New York, 1999, pp. 368-369, Casson, Lionel, The Ancient Mariners, Minerva Press, New York, 1959, pp. 129-132, Morison, Samuel Eliot, The European Discovery of America: The Northern Voyages, Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 5, Rennell, James, The Geographical System of Herodotus, V. 2, Second Edition, C. J. G. & F. Rivington, London, 1830, pp. 348-408, at Internet Archive Here.

2. Herodotus, 2007, Book 4, s. 42. Some translations add “-to northward of them.” See Herodotus, The Histories, 2nd Revised Edition, Penguin Books, London, 2003, Book 4. s. 42.

3. Herodotus, 2007, p. 299, Footnote 4.42.4a, James, pp. 370-371, Cary, p. 115, Casson, pp. 131-132.

4. James, p. 370.

5. Strabo, Geography, Book 2, s. 4, at LacusCurtius, Here.

6. Polybius, The Histories, Book 3, s. 38, at Lacus Curtius, Here.

7. See also Ptolemy, The Geography, Book 4, at Internet Archive, Here.

8. Lateiner, Donald, The Historical Method of Herodotus, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1989, pp. 59-75, Cary, pp. 114-115.

9. Cary, p. 115, Casson, pp. 131-132, James, pp. 369-373.

10. Cary, 115-116. James, IBID.

11. Cary, pp. 116-117, Casson, pp. 131-132.

12. Cary, pp. 117-118, Morison, Samuel Eliot, The European Discovery of America: The Southern Voyages, Oxford University Press, 1974, pp. 220-223, James, p. 374, Rennell, pp. 348-408.

13. Cary, pp. 117-119, James, p. 374, Casson, 131-132, Rennell, pp. 348-408.

Pierre Cloutier

Carlos Castaneda and
Anthropological Fraud

Carlos Castaneda Cover on Time Magazine
Carlos Castaneda (1925-1998) was the author of various books, of “Anthropology”, including Castaneda, Carlos. Journey to Ixtlan, The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge, A Separate Reality, The Art of Dreaming, and many other books.1

The other thing to remember about Carlos Castaneda is that he was a fraud and a liar. He said that he was doing research on Yaqui Shamanism who he called Don Juan. It is now very clear that Don Juan did not exist and that Carlos books are clear frauds in that they are not in any sense Ethnographic accounts of Yaqui Shamanism but fiction.2

Rather than go into a long dissertation about why Carlos Castaneda’s books are fraudulent, I will just mention a few facts.

Carlos Castaneda claimed that he was born in Sao Paulo Brazil in either 1931 or 1935. It appears that in fact he was born in 1925 in the city of Cajamarca Peru. He also claimed to have served in the Korean War, also a false claim.3

Further it appears that Carlos claim to describe Yaqui shamanism is completely bogus and his Don Juan nothing but an invention.4 Further Carlos accounts have such absurdities as Carlos wondering about with Don Juan in the desert for days in June with no mention of the heat. Those description of hiking about in the desert when the temperature soars to well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, are just stupid. We read descriptions of climbing up to the top of hills in August and resting in open spaces until noon. What!!5 We also learn that the Sonoran desert is crawling with Mountain lions (Pumas), despite that fact they have nearly been wiped out in the area and are solitary, among other absurdities.6

In 1973 When a lot of people were taking Carlos’ fantasies seriously even Time magazine in a generally positive cover story said:

However, with Castaneda's increasing fame have come increasing doubts. Don Juan has no other verifiable witness, and Juan Matus is nearly as common a name among the Yaqui Indians as John Smith farther north. Is Castaneda real? If so, did he invent Don Juan? Is Castaneda just putting on the straight world?

…

But such endorsements and parallels do not in any way validate the more worldly claim to importance of Castaneda's books: to wit, that they are anthropology, a specific and truthful account of an aspect of Mexican Indian culture as shown by the speech and actions of one person, a shaman named Juan Matus. That proof hinges on the credibility of Don Juan as a being and Carlos Castaneda as a witness. Yet there is no corroboration—beyond Castaneda's writings-that Don Juan did what he is said to have done, and very little that he exists at all.7

If the fraudulence of Carlos “research” and books is now well established how did he end up being so successful and getting a Phd from the University of California? I will explore that later.

Castaneda's books has been under sustained attack for many years, right from the beginning, the refusal of the University of California to openly acknowledge this is a reflection on them but I guess they want to preserve the rather profitable sales of Castaneda's books. Its always hard to acknowledge you've been had especially when it makes you money. I note that vast legion of "alternative" Anthropologists, etc., who have been boosting Castaneda's books have been if anything even more loath to admit they've been had.

If they had followed a few simple rules, that my Prof's in Anthropology were required, and required, to produce Castaneda would never have gotten a Phd.

1, Prove that you went to where you say you went. (tickets, photos, etc.)

2, Turn over your notes to the Phd. committee.

3, If you are working with people who speak a different language provide a vocabulary of some kind indicating a knowledge of said language.

4, Indicate in your bibliography a detailed knowledge of seminal and recent work on the "people" you are studying.

5, Have on your committee at least one person who has some detailed knowledge of the the area / people you are doing the Phd. on.

6, Have the manuscript properly vetted for errors, omissions etc.

It is my understanding that the Committee that awarded Castaneda the Phd., violated those norms.

The University of California is shamefully but not surprisingly refusing to publicly acknowledge this Phd board’s incompetence and negligence.

Carlos Castaneda was and remains a fraud because he invented Don Juan and his research on the Yaqui Indian Shamanism was bogus and false.

He claimed to the Phd., committee he was doing ethnographic research on a Yaqui Indian shaman. He was not. He told the Phd., committee he was doing research on Yaqui religious practice and he was not. He told vast number of people, (those who bought his books) that his books represented a picture of Yaqui shamanism and religious belief; it is not. The books were presented has non-fiction when they were fiction. Finally the books are peppered with absurdities, inaccuracies which indicate systematic falsehoods.It is shameful that Carlos got a Phd., and a further shame the University of California refuses to publicly acknowledge this shoddy episode for what it was.

Carlos was however very attuned to the wave of New Age idiocy that was coming and decided to cash in on that wave by producing works awash in New Age glop and it helped make him rich and famous. Meanwhile it produced works of virtually no Anthropological value whatsoever.8

Some try to excuse Carlos on the grounds that his writing impart a “higher” truth, however Time magazine got it right so long ago when it compared Carlos’ writings to fiction:

The difference is that Castaneda does not present his Don Juan cycle as fiction but as unembellished documentary fact.9

I might be able to discuss the merits of Castaneda's books, (in my opinion minimal) if they had been published as fiction, and not as fact.

1. Journey to Ixtlan, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1972, The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge, University of California Press, Berkeley CA., 1998, A Separate Reality, Pocket Books, New York, 1971, The Art of Dreaming, HarperCollins, New York, 1993.

2. See for example De Mille, Richard, Castaneda’s Journey, Capra Press, Santa Barbara CA., 1976, De Mille, Richard, Editor, The Don Juan Papers, Ross-Erikson Pub., Santa Barbara, Ca., 1980, Kikes, Jay Courtney, Carlos Castaneda, Academic Opportunism and the Psychedelic Sixties, Millenia Press, Victoria BC., 1993, Churchill, Ward, Carlos Castaneda: The Greatest Hoax since Piltdown Man, in Fantasies of the Master Race, Common Courage Press, Monroe MA., 1992 pp. 43-64, Harris, Marvin, Return of the Witch, in Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches, Vintage Books, New York, 1974, pp. 208-222, and Cultural Materialism, Vintage Books, New York, 1979, pp. 319-324.

3. Churchill, p. 45, Wikipedia, Carlos Casteneda, Here.

4, De Mille, Richard, Sonoragate or Tales of Folly, in The Don Juan Papers, pp. 119-143, see also Harris, 1974.

5, Sebald, Hans, Roasting Rabbits in Tularemia or The Lion, the Witch, and the Horned Toad, in The Don Juan Papers, pp. 34-38, p. 35.

6. IBID, p. 36.

7, Time Magazine cover story, March 5, 1973, Don Juan and the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, at Time, Here.

8, Gardner, Martin, Carlos Castaneda and New Age Anthropology, in Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?, W.W. Norton, New York, 2001, pp. 162-171, Harris, 1974 & 1979. For what Carlos was up too later in his life and its ill effects see Marshall, Robert, The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda, at Salon, Here.

9. Time.

Pierre Cloutier

Daniel Dunglas Home Con-Artist.

D. D. Home

One of the most amusing truisms is that it is never really possible to underestimate the intelligence of people, especially of people who think that they are really bright. A classic example is the life and career of Daniel Dunglas Home, (1833-1886). Called often D. D. Home.

Now D. D. Home was a psychic medium who too this day many consider to be genuine.1 Supposedly he could levitate off the ground and up to ceilings, supposedly he could elongate his body, levitate tables and all sorts of interesting phenomena, such as spirit hands appear and unearthly music echo.2

All of which is very fascinating but what does it prove? Basically D. D. Home sold himself as a Psychic, and not has a clever magician. He apparently was charming and rather convincing. Many people thought he was too charming and artless to be a con artist. Such people seemed to have forgotten that a con-artist who comes across has a con-artist will not be terribly successful at it. However a con-artist who appears to be charming and artless will be a stunning success as a con-artist.

A great deal as been made of eyewitness testimony of his miraculous feats. Well twentieth century experience of eyewitness testimony of the feats of psychics has revealed one thing in stunning detail. People, especially true believers, tend to spectacularly misremember such events. They forget key details. This is why the supposed eyewitness, (or witless) testimony of his alleged feats in such places as that house in Springfield Massachusetts, and his levitation in Ward Cheney's house are almost completely worthless.3 Despite what the Wikipedia article implies the fact that intelligent people, including Judges and inventors thought he was for real proves nothing.

The reason is simple. A Magician is skilled in deception, he / she is in effect a liar and deceiver. The pleasure is in knowing that you are being deceived and how clever the Magician is in doing his / her deception. The fact of the matter is that ordinary people are not trained to be Magicians so that they have absolutely no idea what to look for. It is further a truism among Magicians that adults are easier to deceive than children. Children have the habit of looking where their not supposed to look. Adults especially smart adults who think that they cannot be tricked are much easier to deceive.4

What is required is the presence of someone skilled / knowledgeable in conjuring to be present and of course for the subject being tested not to be in control of the experiment. Interestingly D. D. Home very carefully screened who would be present at his séances and was always very uncooperative if a Magician was present. That alone should set bells whistling. But of course the mouse was allowed to control the experiment least he get “upset”.5

What is also of interest is that D. D. Home’s levitations where performed, along with his other manifestations, apparently in the dark! Well it seems that D.D. Home would often start his séances in the light and then the lights would be dimmed and then the real miracles would happen! Today many writers about D.D. Home argue that it is a matter for debate about whether or not some of his feats were done in the dark.6 This is nothing but special pleading it is a verified fact that over and over again believers in D. D. Home’s miraculous feats describe this that or the other feat but neglect to say that the room was so dark you could barely see your hand in front of your face as mentioned by other witnesses. This occurs so often with D. D. Home as be a virtual cliché. Of course since people knowledgeable about magic were rigorously excluded, along with the feats happening mainly in the dark, there is no reason to take D. D. Home’s magic tricks seriously.

Like Geller, Home would not perform in the presence of magicians or even skeptics unless he sized up the skeptic as simple-minded. If a sitter in one of Home’s séances so much as hinted doubts, the spirits would ask the skeptic to leave. Would not such negative thoughts dampen the spirits’ spirits?7

Homes was tested by the scientist William Crookes, who concluded that Homes was for real. However it appears that Crookes tests are worthless as coming from a true believer whose “precautions” were ludicrous.8

Home had a knack for making friends who he could use. Believers made much of the fact that Home’s never asked for payment for his services. However they showered him with gifts, money etc., and made him a very wealthy man. It appears all he had to do was hint that he needed something and it would be given to him without him “asking”.9

D.D. Home also required during his séances that participants not take their hands off the table. How convenient! This of course greatly increased his ability to deceive, especially in the dark. It was also another example of the mouse controlling the experiment. Of course why the spirits would require this is not clear.10

Later in his life (1866) D. D. Home meet a Mrs. Jane Lyon and convinced her to adopt him as her son and give him 24,000 pounds, not including a Birthday gift of 6,800 pounds. Which in those days was a sizable fortune. Mrs. Lyon sued to get it back and a judge ruled in her favour.8 Interestingly Wikipedia relies on Conan Doyle’s very apologetic version of these events, ignoring what the trial judge actually said and the evidence of sleaze. For example the judge accepted as a fact that D. D. Home used alleged spirit messages from Mrs. Lyon’s deceased husband to induce her to adopt him has her son give the above mentioned sums of money and give him the arms of Lyon in her will. The alleged fact that D. D. Home did not lose any friends over this says less about D. D. Home than the boundless gullibility of his marks; opps! I mean friends.11

It is remarkable that so many of D.D. Home’s true believers took his alleged levitations seriously. A description from 1860 describes one of these miracle flights which took place in near pitch darkness. How did the sitters know D.D. Home floated up to the ceiling? Well he left a mark! Just how can anyone take that seriously?! Has for the white glowing hands. Well glow in the dark white rubber gloves were common among 19th century magicians and fraudulent mediums.12


D.D. Home takes a trip
Among the tricks that D. D. Home performed was the unearthly music. It is interesting to note that the music was one octave pieces like Home Sweet Home and The Last Rose of Summer, both easily played on mouth organs that can be easily concealed in the mouth.13

It is said Home was never caught this is debatable. Several incidents such has a viewer seeing that a spirit hand was continuous with Home’s body. Or that on one particular incident a viewer saw D.D. Home handle a bottle that proved to have phosphorescent oil in it. Or an incident were the viewer felt warm human fingers. Another incident involved someone seeing D. D. Home’s foot slip back into his shoe after someone near D.D. Home claimed to have been touched by the spirits.14

D. D. Home having made his bundle and married into wealth retired from the medium trade. However he wrote a book Lights and Shadows, which detailed the fraudulent means used by other psychics, although the book is very careful not to describe how to produce phenomena similar to the phenomena that D.D. Homes produced. I guess D. D. Home’s had to protect his trade secrets.15

It is of interest that one of the most inveterate boosters of the alleged psychic powers of D.D. Home’s was Conan Doyle and to this day people take his writings on spiritualist matters seriously. Why? The evidence is overwhelming that when it came to spiritualist stuff Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Homes, was incredibly gullible. Two examples should suffice. One was Doyle’s insistence, despite Houdini’s persistent denials, that Houdini had genuine psychic powers and that Houdini could dematerialize and pass through solid walls and rematerialize!14 This piece of foolishness wreaked their friendship. Then there is the Cottingley Fairies fiasco. Basically it involved two young ladies producing some, rather crude, photos of Fairies and claiming that they were of the real thing. Incredibly Doyle took this all seriously saying over and over again that the two young ladies could not possibly fool him; he was too bright to be fooled by them! Well in both those cases Doyle was spectacularly wrong. Those are just some indications about just how gullible Doyle was when it came to any thing spiritualist.16

It is fascinating to record that the age of great physical mediums, who could float, conjure ectoplasm, call for music, white hands, and physical spirits is past. They have become an extinct species. One wonders why? If the psychic phenomena was real why did it dry up? The answer is rather obvious; the invention of the flashlight makes it much harder to cheat and trick even in total darkness. So the age in which people like D.D. Home, (only the most prominent among many) who could pull off their tricks in the dark came to a crashing end. Sometimes modern technology makes life so much duller. We are reduced to psychics channelling empty headed bromides in the light.

As for séances to contact the dead T. H. Huxley said it all:

The only good I can see in the demonstration of the ‘Truth of Spiritualism’ is to furnish an additional argument against suicide. Better live a crossing-sweeper, than die and be made to talk twaddle by a medium hired at a guinea a séance.17

D. D. Home being thoughtful
1. See A very favourable piece about him in Wikipedia, Here and Beloff, John, What is your Counter-Explanation?, in Kurtz, Paul, Editor, A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY,1985, pp. 359-377.

2. See Wikipedia, Footnote 1, Gardner, Martin, The New Age, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1988, pp. 79-92, pp. 175-178.

3, See Randi, James, The Truth about Uri Geller, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1975, pp. 191-216, and Flim Flam, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1987, pp. 252-326, Gardner. Martin, Science Good, Bad and Bogus, Prometheus Books, Buffalo,1981, pp. 91-112, Gardner, 1988, pp. 25-31.

4, IBID.

5, See Footnote 2.

6, See Wikipedia, Footnote 1, It appears that D. D. Home’s table levitations and spirit rappings would often occur in the light. But since those psychic feats are easy to pull off fraudulently they cannot be taken seriously.

7. Gardner, 1988, p. 83.

8, Hall, Trevor H., The Enigma of Daniel Home, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1984, The Spiritualists, Duckworth, London, 1962, New Light on Old Ghosts, Duckworth, 1965.

9, Wikipedia, Footnote 1, Gardner, 1988, pp. 88-92, 178.

10. Gardner, 1988, p. 82.

11. See Gardner, 1988 pp. 177-178, and Coover, John E., Metapsychics and the Incredulity of Psychologists: Psychical Research before 1927, in Kurtz, Paul, A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1985, pp. 241-273, at 255.

12. Gardner, 1988, p. 82.

13, Gardner, 1988, p. 177.

14, Coover, pp. 254-255, Gardner, 1988, p. 82.

15 The book can be downloaded at Google Books, Here

16 See Doyle, Arthur Conan, The Edge of the Unknown, Echo press, New York, 2006 (Original 1930), see Chapter 1, The Riddle of Houdini, See also Doyle, Arthur Conan, The Coming of the Fairies, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1921, See Also Gardner, 1981, pp. 113-122, Randi, 1987, pp. 12-41. An over all look at this historical phenomena including a detailed look at D.D. Home is provided in Brandon, Ruth, The Spiritualists, Knopf, New York, 1983.

17. Gardner, 1988, quoting Brandon quoting T. S. Huxley, p. 178.

Pierre Cloutier

Mayan Math

The Mayan mathematical system was both sophisticated and different from the one we use today. The following is brief overview of that system.

The Maya used a "vegistmal" or 20 based math system unlike our 10 based system. The Maya also used a zero within that system. Place notation was vertical rather than horizontal. The following is a list of the basic Mayan numbers. Note Mayan numbers could be written in a number of different ways including as complicated Glyphs.

Thus the figure of 8,456 would be written.

The figure 1, 576,234 would be written.

The system works in the following way.

Sixth line = etc.

Fifth line = 160, 000’s

Fourth line = 8,000’s

Third line = 400’s

Second line = 20’s

First line = 1’s

In each line the base amount is twenty times greater than the base amount of the previous line. It is important to note that in Mayan Calendrics a Tun does not equal 400 but 360, i.e., 18 x 20 not 20 x 20, and this effects all the numbers above it which work out as for example 7,616 days:

This was done apparently to round off a Tun so it was approximately 1 year long, even though the Maya recorded dates by the total number of days since particular events not in years.

Bibliography

Coe, Michael D., The Maya 6th Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 1998.

Hagen, Victor W. World of the Maya, Mentor Books, New York, 1960.

Schele, Linda, Freidel, David, Parker, Joy, Maya Cosmos, William Morrow Company Inc., New York, 1993.

Schele, Linda, Freidel, David, A Forest of Kings, William Morrow Company Inc., New York, 1990.

Foster, Lynn V., Handbook to Life in the Maya World, Oxford University Prtess, Oxford, 2002.

Martin, Simon, Grube, Nikolai, Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, 2nd Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 2008.

Longhena, Maria, Maya Script, Abbeville Publishers, New York, 2000.

Pierre Cloutier

A little Democritus

Democritus

The famed philosopher Democritus, who lived in the 5th century B.C.E., is best known to day for his theory of atoms. Hence he is called an atomist. Although many books talk about him in such a manner has to indicate that he was the originator of this idea of everything composed of atoms, i.e., amalgamations of very small particles he did not in fact originate the idea.1

It was in fact the philosopher Leucippus who originated the idea. Unfortunately Leucippus is a very shadowy figure and the tendency for later sources to talk about Leucippus and Democritus together does not make distinguishing them very easy. Further it appears that Leucippus wrote very little.2

Democritus seems to have been a little older than Socrates3, very little is known of his life,4 although he seems to have been a very prolific writer. The writer Diogenes Laertius supplies a very long list of Democritius’ works as follows:

Ethical Works

Pythagoras
On the Disposition of the Wiseman
On the things in Hades
On Manliness / On Virtues
The Horn of Amaltheia
On Contentment
Ethical Commentaries
Well-Being

Natural Science

The Great World-ordering [probably actually by Leucippus]
The Little World-ordering
Description of the World
On the Planets
On Nature
On the Nature of Man / On Flesh
On Thoughts
On the Senses / On the Soul?
On Flavours
On Colours
On Different Shapes
On Changing Shape
Buttresses
On Images / On Providence
On Logic / The Rule
Puzzles

Unordered works

Heavenly Causes
Atmospheric Causes
Terrestrial Causes
Causes Concerned with Fire and Things in Fire
Causes Concerned with Sounds
Causes Concerned with Seeds and Plants and-
Fruits
Causes Concerned with Animals
Miscellaneous Causes
On the Stone

Mathematical Works

On Different Angles / On Contact with Circles and- Spheres
On Geometry
Geometry
Numbers
On Irrational Lines and Solids
Planispheres
The Great Year / Astronomy [Calendar]
Contest of the Water clock
Description of the Heavens
Geography
Description of the Poles
Description of Rays of Light

Literary Works

On Rhythms and Harmony
On Poetry
On the Beauty of Verses
On Euphonious and Cacophonous Letters
On Homer / Correct Diction and Glosses
On Songs
On Verbs
Vocabularies

Technical Works

Prognosis
On Diet / Dietetics
Medical Judgment
Causes concerning Appropriate and Inappropriate- Occasions
On Farming / Farming Matters
On Painting
Tactics
The Use of Arms

Commentaries

On the Sacred Writings of Babylon
On Those in Meroe
Circumnavigation of the Ocean
On History
Chaldaean Account
Phrygian Account
On Fever and Coughing Sickness
Legal Causes
Chamber-pots / Problems5

A very interesting list which indicates the very wide ranging interests of Democritus. Unfortunately soon after Democritus’ death interest shifted from “Natural Philosophy” i.e., “Science” to Ethics and Metaphysics so that later Greek philosophers were far more interested in Democritus’ ethical works and what we now about Democritus’ atomic theory is from bare summaries and not from actual quotations. In fact the great majority of surviving direct quotations of Democritus’ works are in fact from his ethical works.6

In fact Democritus’ idea of atoms lead him to reject the idea of Gods or other supernatural forces controlling men’s lives and the behavior of the universe. Instead it was the material action of atoms that did so. Democritus apparently believed that such material action of atoms was discoverable through the use of human senses. Here was the possible foundations of something like modern “Science”. Alas it was premature and died being born.

So in this respect Democritus, although no Ionian was in fact the last of the Ionian Philosophers in that his main interest was in explaining the world around him. Subsequent generations of thinkers / philosophers were vastly less interested and instead shifted their interest to matters of metaphysics, ethics, the nature of virtue etc., so that Greek science was basically stillborn. Democritus’ skeptical approach was largely abandoned and so was his idea that the senses, although imperfect and sometimes deceiving, did tell us about the world.

In this particular essay I shall not examine Democritus’ “Science” but instead quote a few of his ethical statements and comment on them.

Medicine heals the diseases of the body, and wisdom takes away passions of the soul.7

This illustrates the traditional Greek attitude that passions are dangerous and need to be both understood and controlled. A wise man controls passions that uncontrolled lead to dangerous extreme behavior. Wisdom leads to moderation and that includes moderated passions.

Men enjoy scratching themselves – they get the same pleasure as those who are having sexual intercourse.8

This passage aside from its humorous aspects compares sex to scratching an itch and thus places it has something prosaic and hardly earth shaking. It also places sex as a type of physical pleasure and not has a sort of cosmic metaphor. Further by reducing sex to scratching an itch Democritus was perhaps implying that’s importance was vastly overrated and the wise man could do without.

Do not be eager to know everything lest you become ignorant of everything.9

Similar to the idea of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing or the idea of a dabbler of many trades is a master of none. In this case Democritus’ own prolific output in so many different fields just might indicate that this was a bit of self depreciation directed against himself.

Men fashioned an image of chance as an excuse for their own thoughtlessness; for chance rarely fights with wisdom, and a clear-sighted intelligence sets straight most things in life.10

A variation of God helps those that help themselves and that people make their own luck. This basically optimistic view of life was at variance with the then conventional Greek, and later Greco-Roman view, of fate. In this view men were nothing more than toys being tossed about by capricious “Fortune”. This pessimistic view of life went hand in hand with a depreciation of the virtue of knowledge of the outside world and the idea that anything could really change for the better. The turn inwards of Greek philosophy towards questions of ethics and self –understanding was also accompanied by an quietitude about accepting what happened to you as fate of which little could be done.

The world is a stage, life is our entrance: you came, you saw, you left.11

Yup that’s were Shakespeare got it! This thought goes with Democritus’ basically materialistic view of life. He seemed to think that the soul died with the body. And his vision of life as a play speaks to an awareness of the absurd / silly aspects of life and to the possible pointlessness of the whole enterprise. It also speaks to the idea that pointless or not life is worth living. Although I wonder if Democritus ever thought that if life was a play just who / what is the audience being performed for?

The world is change; life is opinion.12

Of interest in that it goes back to the ideas of the Ionian philosophers that change was continual and such notions as you never step into the same river twice.13 Further Democritus accepted the idea that many of the notions of how we order our lives are just opinion and not fact and we should relate to others through acceptance of that and exercise a measure of tolerance.

It is of interest that the idea of change being a basic property of the universe and essentially neutral was abandoned by later Greek Philosophy. Instead the idea arose that the seeking of permanent, eternal truths and facts was the point of philosophical inquiry. Instead of being a process of inquiry philosophy became a collection of “truthful” axioms. Thus life was no longer “opinion” and world was no longer “change”. Plato for example abominated change which to him meant degeneration. In his eyes what was to be sought was perfect unchanging “Forms”. Change of any description was bad and every effort had to be made to freeze things, to avoid dissention, conflict, disorder. Thus the search for the “perfect” state, “perfect” definitions, “perfect” laws. And the world was viewed as an inferior, decaying world of little real importance.

The cause of error is ignorance of what is better.14

This is similar to Plato’s idea that bad “evil” behavior is the result of ignorance of the “good” and not of innate evil. However in this case the moral attributes given by Plato are absent in that the here the neutral term error is used. This is probably related to philosophical stream of which Democritus was a part that concentrated on practicalities and not innate inward states. Plato was concerned with defining the “good” and could not conceive of men deliberately doing evil. Plato also was in search of absolute “good”. The earlier Ionian Philosophers with their notions of how things were frequently “relative” would have regarded such a search as potentially futile. Although they would have accepted the idea of certain attitudes and behaviors has “good”. Further Democritus seems to have viewed finding norms of behavior in a practical sense not in terms of searching for perfect definitions of concepts.

One should emulate the deeds and actions of virtue, not the words.15

A variation of deeds speak louder than words. Again a piece of practical advice. Rather than argue about what is virtue try to emulate virtue through action not through words. I strongly suspect Democritus would have found later Greek philosophy with its endless digressions about the nature of “virtue” etc., so many words that were nothing more than a substitute for action.

If you exceed the measure, what is most enjoyable will become least enjoyable.16

Similar to the idea of too much of a good thing. This goes with the Greek idea of things in moderation and that excess leads to corruption, satiation, boredom and a general lowering of the quality of life. The idea of indulgence leads to unhappiness is in general related to the notion that excess is a bad thing and that a life of measured moderation leads to happiness.

Men remember wrongs better than benefits. And that is just; for as those who repay their debts should not be praised, whereas those who do not should be blamed and suffer, so too it is with a ruler. For he was chosen not to do wrong but to do right.17

A very interesting point of view. What Democritus is saying is because rulers are expected to do what is right. When they are doing so they are doing nothing more than their jobs and what is expected and so should not expect praise. For by praising them you are saying what they are doing, i.e., doing the right thing is somehow unexpected hence praiseworthy. When it is merely what is expected. However bad acts are not expected and in fact violate the job description and so are worthy of loud denunciation. Democritus’ point is interesting but he seems to forget the all too human need for praise and ego boosting.

He who worthily administers the greatest offices has the greatest share of justice and virtue.18

Considering how Plato and many other Greek Philosophers viewed politics as somehow polluted and corrupting and saw little if any virtue in politicians or statesmen. Unless they were trying to create Plato’s ideal societies. In fact Plato thought Philosophers should avoid such entanglements and instead concentrate on navel gazing about being virtuous and avoiding the corrupt world of the senses. Here Democritus is advocating a connection with the world and the potential for good of political action. With the inward turn of Greek Philosophy this would largely fall by the wayside.

When those in power take it upon themselves to lend to the poor and to aid them and to favour them, then there is compassion and not isolation but companionship and mutual defence and concord among the citizens and other good things too many to catalogue.19.

A passage that illustrates the democratic sympathies of Democritus. I suspect Democritus had in mind the democratic city of Athens which was very successful in maintaining democracy and stability internally and avoiding the disastrous stasis or civil strife that pitted poor citizens against wealthy Aristocrats / Oligarchs in murderous mayhem for centuries. The Athenian democracy interestingly managed to do this and that the main leaders of the democracy were long established Athenian aristocratic families. Later Greek Philosophers including Plato generally abominated Athenian democracy and any attempt to give the poor a voice in government.

Justice is doing what should be done, injustice not doing what should be done but turning away from it.20

This makes a rather interesting contrast with Plato’s definition of “justice” in the Republic, where “justice” is defined as everyone doing what they are best fitted for. How you determine that is not explained except that the wise Philosopher Kings would somehow know through their philosophical speculations. It is interesting that whereas Plato defined “justice” as a property of a whole social system and took it away from the idea of “justice” as actions / omissions, i.e., the idea of “justice” being how people were treated and what was and was not done. Democritus keeps that common notion of “justice” here. Plato’s definition is part of the process by which Greek philosophy retreated from the practical world to the world of metaphysics and airy abstractions.

Democritus is again showing the spirit of the Ionian Philosophers with their emphasis of on practical action. It is also clear that Democritus did not view the idea of “justice” has a problematic concept but something fairly clear to everyone and not in need of obtuse analysis.

I could go on but that is a sample of some of the words of Democritus regarding ethics. For such a prolific writer it is remarkable that so little of what he wrote survived and even his ethical material, which had the most appeal to later Greco-Romans survives only in short quotes and pithy epigrams. It appears that even his ethical material was not that appealing and what generally circulated were collections of sayings. The full actual works were too out of touch with the otherworldly spirit of much Greco-Roman intellectual life after Plato. They lacked the inward focus of later intellectual life and so were little read in the original by later readers.

Democritus represents both the culmination of the Ionian Philosophers and the end. It appears that people preferred to read about his “scientific” books in summaries and amusing anecdotes. Very few seemed to have been interested in reading the originals. Very little work seems to have been done by the later atomist thinkers to build up from Democritus’ foundations. Instead they combined atomism with philosophical resignation and bootless speculation.

Ethically Democritus’ idea that action was both possible and desirable and his apparent rejection of philosophical resignation were ignored.

Thus did the Greco-Roman culture stagnate.

1. Jonathon Barnes Editor, Early Greek Philosophy, 2nd Revised Edition, Penguin Books, London, 2001, pp. 201-253, Waterfield, Robin, Editor, The First Philosophers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, pp. 164-171, Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., Schofield, M., Editors, The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 402-433.

2. IBID.

3. IBID. Kirk et al, p. 404.

4. Barnes, p. 203.

5. IBID. pp. 204-205.

6. IBID. p. 227.

7. IBID. p. 228.

8. IBID. p. 229.

9. IBID. p. 230.

10. IBID. p. 230.

11. IBID. p. 253.

12. IBID. p. 253.

13. IBID. p. 70, Greek Philosopher Heraclitus.

14. IBID. p. 251.

15. IBID. p. 250.

16. IBID. p. 238

17. IBID. p. 243.

18. IBID. p. 243.

19. IBID. p. 242.

20. IBID. p. 242.

Pierre Cloutier