16. Mind, Self-Rule, and the Separation of Known from Unknown

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Apparent Contradiction on Self-Rule #

Anaxagoras claims two seemingly contradictory things about mind:

• Thesis 1: Mind is self-ruling (evidenced by the existence of logic)
• Thesis 2: The ruler must be separated from the ruled (demonstrated by military, judicial, and familial examples)

The problem: If the ruler must be separated from the ruled, how can mind rule itself without creating a division within itself?

The Resolution: Separation of Known from Unknown #

The apparent contradiction is resolved through Socratic insight. Mind rules itself not by having two distinct parts, but by:

• Being ruled in what it doesn’t know by what it does know
• Using knowledge of universals, length and width to determine area
• Using premises already known to determine conclusions in the syllogism

This requires that the mind first separate what it knows from what it doesn’t know—a distinction Socrates pursued by showing men that they confused what they knew with what they didn’t know.

Socratic Method as Preparation for Self-Rule #

Socrates’s practice of questioning reveals that most men have mixed up the known with the unknown. By using contradiction and dialectical questioning, Socrates:

• Forces men to recognize inconsistencies in their beliefs
• Separates what they truly know from what they merely think they know
• Prepares the mind to rule itself through logic

This is foundational because logic is the art of using what you do know to investigate what you don’t know.

The Thinnest of All Things #

Mind is the thinnest of all things because:

• It penetrates and divides things
• It has no parts (otherwise something thinner would compose it)
• It separates things that cannot be separated in reality (e.g., universal from particular, sphere-ness from a rubber ball)
• If mind is thinnest, it cannot be a mixture of things (which would have components thinner than it)

Mind’s Transcendence and Rule #

Two related but distinct claims:

• Third attribute: Mind is unmixed with things (so it can rule them—if mixed, it would share their nature and lose authority)
• Fifth attribute: Mind is pure/not a mixture (it has no component parts within itself)

These are distinguishable: one concerns mind’s relation to external things, the other mind’s internal composition.

The Logic of Distinction and Order #

Reason is defined by the ability to “look before and after”—to see order. Before reason can see order, it must see distinction. The axiom of before and after states: nothing is before or after itself, so there must be distinction.

• Distinction logically precedes order
• But seeing distinction does not guarantee seeing order
• Seeing order necessarily includes seeing distinction

Key Arguments #

The Ruler-Ruled Separation Principle #

Premise 1: A ruler mixed with what is ruled cannot effectively govern it (loses authority, distance, command)

Premise 2: Examples support this across domains:

• Military: Officers separated from enlisted men; insignia maintains distance
• Judicial: Judges must be impartial; transferred when biased
• Familial: A parent who tries to be a friend loses authority; a stranger’s command sometimes more effective than a parent’s
• Corporate: Physical separation correlates with hierarchy

Conclusion: The greater mind must be separated from matter to rule it.

The Self-Rule Paradox and Resolution #

Problem: Self-ruling seems to require identity (mind ruling itself = no separation), but ruling seems to require separation (ruler ≠ ruled)

Key Insight: Self-rule operates through internal differentiation of knowing states, not through partition of substance:

• When I know the length and width but not the area, my knowledge of length and width rules my judgment about area
• The premise rules the conclusion in a syllogism
• The known rules the unknown without dividing the mind into parts

Resolution: Mind remains a simple, unpartitioned unity while still exhibiting the structure of ruler and ruled through the hierarchy of known and unknown.

Contradiction as Pedagogical Tool #

Principle: When two reasonable things seem to contradict, this apparent discord (dissonance) forces deeper investigation into hidden harmony

Example—The Slave Boy:

• Boy thinks: doubling the side doubles the square
• He knows: 2×2=4 and 4×4=16
• Contradiction: If doubling the side doubles the square, then 4×4 should equal 8, but it equals 16
• Resolution: He is led to see that the diagonal line, not the doubled side, creates the double square

Application: The contradiction between self-rule and ruler-ruled separation initially seems irresolvable but contains hidden wisdom about how mind actually operates.

Important Definitions #

Self-Rule (αὐτοκρατής/autokratēs) vs. Self-Control #

• Self-rule of the mind: The mind ruled in what it doesn’t know by what it does know; the known governing the unknown
• Self-control (more common usage): One part of a person (reason) controlling another part (emotions)
• The distinction matters: mind’s self-rule is not self-control in this latter sense, since mind has no parts

Separation (χωρισμός/chōrismos) - Two Meanings in This Context #

1. External separation: Mind unmixed with matter (third attribute)
2. Internal separation: Distinction between known and unknown within mind (epistemological)

The Continuous (τὸ συνεχές/to synechés) #

• That which is divisible forever
• Mind’s role in dividing what is naturally continuous through intellection

Ruling vs. Being Ruled #

• A ruler maintains authority through separation and distance
• Being ruled means being governed by something other than oneself
• These can both apply to mind: mind rules itself by being governed (in ignorance) by its own (known) nature

Examples & Illustrations #

Authority Through Distance: Personal Testimony #

• Parent working outside home maintains authority through separation; parent mixed with children all day loses command
• Stranger’s warning to misbehaving child more effective than familiar aunt’s
• Police officer’s threat stops spinning child more effectively than aunt’s repeated corrections
• Principle: Authority depends on maintaining distinction between ruler and ruled

Self-Rule in Political Context #

• When a colony gains independence and “self-rule,” this doesn’t mean the whole country rules the whole country
• Rather, one part (government) rules other parts (citizens)
• Yet we still call this “self-rule” because it’s internal governance, not external domination
• Analogy: Man’s self-control means reason ruling emotions, not the whole man ruling the whole man

Wine Tasting and Distinction #

• Judges blindfolded and given unlabeled wines must distinguish Cabernet Sauvignon from Pinot Noir from Zinfandel
• Only those who can distinguish wines can judge which is better
• Most people cannot make these distinctions, so their preference claims are merely subjective
• Principle: Distinction precedes valid ordering judgments; without distinction, no real comparison is possible

Logic as Evidence of Mind’s Self-Rule #

• Existence of valid reasoning shows mind can govern itself
• In a syllogism, premises (what is known) rule the conclusion (what is unknown)
• In mathematical proof, known quantities rule determinations about unknown quantities

Notable Quotes #

“The hidden harmony is better than the apparent harmony.” — Heraclitus (cited by Berquist on how contradiction reveals deeper truth)

“The ruler must be separated from the ruled.” — Berquist’s principle derived from Anaxagoras, illustrated through military, judicial, and familial examples

“Most men cannot, in fact, rule themselves. They can’t think for themselves… because they haven’t even separated what they know from what they don’t know.” — Berquist, on Socratic insight

Questions Addressed #

How can mind rule itself if the ruler must be separated from the ruled? #

Resolution: Mind rules itself not through internal partition but through epistemological hierarchy—what the mind knows rules what it doesn’t know. The separation is between knowing states, not substances. The mind remains simple and unpartitioned while exhibiting the relational structure of ruler and ruled.

Why do most students fail to see the apparent contradiction between self-rule and ruler-ruled separation? #

Answer: They exist in a state of apparent harmony where all premises seem individually acceptable. Recognizing the contradiction requires comparing premises carefully and entering a state of perplexity (aporia)—a necessary condition for deeper discovery.

What role does Socratic questioning play in enabling self-rule? #

Answer: Socratic dialogue separates what men truly know from what they merely think they know. Since logic requires this separation to operate, Socratic method is the pedagogical preparation for genuine self-governance of the mind.

Is distinction the same as order? #

Answer: No. Distinction precedes order logically. One can see distinction without seeing order, but one cannot see order without first seeing distinction. Reason is defined by order (looking before and after), but this presupposes the fundamental capacity for distinction.