Wisdom (Metaphysics 2005)
Lecture 11: The Pre-Socratics: From Matter to Form to Mover

Transcript
================================================================================

Sometimes a third word we use is the word debt, right? So if I'm running, you know, the biologist might say, I built up a what? Oxygen debt, right? And if I haven't been getting enough sleep for a number of days, I built up a what? Sleep debt. I owe myself some sleep, right? I owe myself, in other cases, some air, right? See? So he uses the word justice, right? Right, huh? Okay? But that's borrowing, right? Words, like we borrow ourselves, huh? From the world of man, right? And apply them to the natural world, right? By a kind of what? Of a likeness, huh? Yeah, yeah. Okay. So we'll take a little break and then we'll go look at the third and last of the great philosophers of Lietus. Now, Neximenez is the third thinker, right? And he's supposed to have said not that water is the beginning of all things or the unlimited, but air is the beginning of all things, right? And as you can see in this fragment, he's influenced by the importance of air for life, right? Just as our soul being air. Well, of course, the Greek word for soul, psuche, comes from what? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And of course, in English, the word for spirit, ghost, right? Goes back to the idea of breath, huh? So actually what we do when we call God a spirit or the angel spirit or even the soul spirit, we're carrying the word for breath or air over to an immaterial substance. It doesn't mean the same thing, but there's a likeness there, right? And these are actors, as I foretold you, were all spirits, as Shakespeare says, and are melted into air, into thin air. Okay? So just as our soul being air holds us together, so do breath and air surround the whole world, right? Well, if you study the first book about the soul, you'll find out that the soul is not air. But most people imagine the soul to be an air-like substance, right, in the shape of a man, huh? And Don here presents the souls there in purgatory and so on. Yeah, it's about having the shape of the man, you know. So I recognize your soul because it has the same shape. Of course, he tries to hug, you know, people you haven't seen all these years, and you can't hug the air, you know, so it's frustrating, you know. Try to hug your wife or your mother or somebody. But that's not what the soul is, huh? Yeah? So he's saying, you don't see it all here in this fragment, but he's saying that air is the beginning of all things, right? Okay? Now, compare Anaximenes with both Thales and Anaximander, right, huh? Could he be influenced, the great Anaximenes, by the thinking of Anaximander, to take air rather than water as the beginning of all things? Yeah. That's quality. Yeah. Because both in a quantitative sense and in a qualitative sense, air is more unlimited than water, right? So, with the help of Anaximander, you have two reasons for saying air is a better guess than water, right? That's one of my stock questions on an exam. Why is air a better guess than water, right? Well, here's two reasons for Anaximander, right? Now, obviously, you can't give these two reasons why it's a better guess than the unlimited. Because nothing could be more unlimited than the unlimited, right? Okay? But you can give from this thinking here that if the beginning of all things must be unlimited in these two senses, then air is certainly closer to what it is than water, right? Okay? But why you would say air rather than unlimited? Well, I suppose you want to go back to something that's closer to our senses if you can, right? And unlimited is just described negatively, right? So, maybe you wanted something more sensible than unlimited, right? But yet, it seems to incorporate these two things, these two ways of being unlimited. Make sense? Okay? Now, there's a third reason you can give why air is a better guess than water. Okay? And this can be seen better if we take a little wider perspective and talk about the poets a bit before the philosophers, huh? Now, the poets kind of dissipate the philosophers, but their idea is that Mother Earth is the beginning of all things. Okay? So, the poets talk about Mother Earth. Maybe even Shakespeare, huh? In the famous play, they're Timon of Athens, right? Timon is digging in the ground, right? For roots. And he addresses the earth saying, Common mother thou, whose womb immeasurable and infinite breast teems and feeds all, right? Okay? Notice he's speaking of Mother Earth as giving rise to everything, right? And he's speaking of his being in a way infinite, huh? Common mother thou whose womb immeasurable, right? That's infinite, right? An infinite breast. Teens gives birth to and feeds all, right? Okay? So the poet said Mother Earth was the beginning of all things. And that's very important to see in this thinking, that this is kind of like the first guess about what the first matter is. And it's interesting to use the word Mother, right? Which has a double importance in philosophy of nature. If you look at a Latin dictionary, you'll see that the word for matter, materia, comes in the word mater, huh? Okay? And that's one of the reasons why we don't call God our Mother, right? Because that would suggest that God is a cause in the sense of matter, right? Okay? So Mother Earth, the word mother, as they say, in Latin there, gives rise to the word for matter, right? So it's kind of like the first thought, really. The second reason why Mother is interesting is that Mother is the one who gives birth, right? And the word nature comes in the word birth. Prenatal, that's the root there, N-A-T. Prenatal, postnatal, nativity. Are you a native of Worcester? I say to the students, you were born here, right? You see? Okay? And Shakespeare there is moving the word birth there in that text I gave you earlier. Okay? Revolts from true birth. Stumbling on abuse, right? Revolts from one's true nature, right? But nature comes from that. So Mother is significant both for mater, matter, and for nature, right? And of course, in Aristotle it talks about nature, we first see nature as being matter. Then later on, nature is being form, right? And of course, he goes on to show that nature is more form than matter, but we first see matter as nature, right? Birth is very interesting, too, because the English word for cause is what? Ground. Ground. Ground and earth are kind of the same thing, right? So, cause, ground, nature, matter, right? All of these things are kind of confused in the poets talking about Mother Earth, right? So it's a wonderful place to begin, right? But the first philosopher, Thales, doesn't agree with the poets, right? He takes water, right? And then, Anaximenes takes air, right? Okay? Now, reason looks before and after, right? Do you see a before and after as you go from Mother Earth to water to air, right? It's more rare, more and fewer and fewer qualities. Yeah, yeah. You can say Mother Earth is more sensible, in one sense of sensible, than water, right? And water is more sensible than what? Air. Air, right? Okay? You know, he took everybody out of this room and all the furniture out of this room, right? And some of the kids said, there's nothing in there. Even though there's air in there, right? But we all spontaneously say there's nothing in there, right? You open a box, you know, you know, I was reading Sherlock Holmes the other day, you know, and of course, there's this box, you know, that they've recovered and they think it's filled with rubies and diamonds and so on. And you open the chest, and it's empty! There's nothing in there! Well, there's something in there. But, yeah, yeah. But with air is in there, you see nothing's in there, right? See? So you're going from the more known to us to the what? Less known to us. That's one order, right? You're going from what is more sensible to what is less sensible, almost not sensible at all. You know? Okay? But now, in terms of a yes as to what the first matter is, right? You're getting something that is maybe more unlimited, right? They thought Mother Earth was filled in the water, some of them. But there's another thing that this suggests. You're getting something thinner and finer in its parts, right? Okay? And so, you know how water sometimes comes through the, what, basement walls, right? But Mother Earth doesn't come through the basement walls, right? Like the water is finer and thinner. It can go through there, right? But the air will get through where the water doesn't get through, right? So the air is finer and thinner, right? And I mentioned how Shakespeare will often speak of air, you know, melted into thin air. Now, does it make sense to say that the, you're going from the thick to the thin now, you might say, right? Now, is the first matter of which all things are made, is that going to be the thickest of things or the thinnest of things? Yeah, yeah. My standard example is that of a thick book, right? Thick book is made by putting together what? Thin pages, right? You don't make a thin page but put together thick books. Okay? You make the, you make the thick out of the thin, right? Okay? So if you make, even by science, if you make molecules out of atoms, the atoms are thinner than the molecules, right? Yeah. If you make the atoms out of elementary particles, they're even thinner, right? Mm-hmm. And if the atom, the atom, the atom, the atom, the particle, the quarks, like some of you will think, they're going to be even thinner, right? So, if I say the atom is the beginning of everything, and you say the atom of your particle, you're making a better guess, right? So this is the third reason why air is a better guess than water, but also water better guess than what? Mother Earth. It's thinner, right? Finer in its parts, right? Okay? You see that? So there are three reasons, then, why air is a better guess than what? Water. Water, right, huh? It's more unlimited in a quantitative sense, more unlimited in a qualitative sense, and it's thinner, right? Now, you couldn't so much use those reasons to say it's a better guess than unlimited, but it's a little more satisfactory to us animals who want to sense things, right, to guess air rather than what? The unlimited, right? Okay? So it's kind of like he wants to combine with something somewhat sensible, right, that hasn't completely escaped near our senses, like water has not, with the insight of an axiomander that it's unlimited somewhere, right? And air seems to do that, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. So those three thinkers are all in the city of Miletus on the coast of Asia Minor, coast of what today would be Turkey, right? It's called Asia Minor there. Now, the next thinker, Pythagoras, huh? He's kind of an oddball because he comes into natural philosophy more from mathematics, right? And so, you've heard the Pythagorean theorem and other such wonders that are attributed to Pythagoras. And in this statement here, the most famous discovery of Pythagoras, right, that the harmony of the octave, what the Greeks would call the diapason, comes in the ratio of two to one. That objects in the ratio of two to one, right, produce this harmony of the octave. By the time when I did this years ago in California there, we'd do it with music strings, huh? And you had these raised strings above the board and you could tighten them or loosen them, right? And you'd tighten or loosen one so you plucked it and it sounded just like the other one. Then you'd take a wooden block, right, and move it down underneath one of the strings halfway. And you'd pluck the half string on the whole string and you'd get the harmony of the octave. Now, we call it the octave because we have eight notes in our thing, huh? The Greeks call it diapason, means diapason, oh, you've gone through all. It's like you're starting over again, right? Okay, you go from do to do, right, huh? Now, the other, you know, harmonies are simple numbers behind them too, but this is the most famous one, huh? So, they say the Pythagoreans got carried away, right? Maybe behind everything, There's what? Simple numbers, simple ratios like that, huh? And so in the opinions about the soul, say in the first book about the soul, Aristotle mentions the opinion that the soul is a self-moving number. That's undoubtedly what? Pythagorean, right? And when they get into ethics, right, they try to find a number for the virtues, huh? And they try to see some kind of likeness between this number and that virtue, right? And so with justice, for example, the virtue of justice, that'd be an odd number, an even number. Even. Yeah, see, just as a question of, you know, are we even now, you know? Equals. Like we say we're accepting something financially, are we even now, you know? So, okay, in this expression, I get your number. That's probably Pythagorean in origin, right? Okay? Oh, my. Now, in coming into natural philosophy from mathematics, in mathematics, you don't really have matter, but you have this thing called form, right? Mm-hmm. Okay? And so if you're accustomed to mathematics, you're accustomed to looking for some other kind of cause than these other guys are looking for. You're inclined to look for the kind of cause called what? Form. Form, yeah. And so the ratio of two to one would be an example of that, right? So we talk about the second kind of cause, form. We call it form, but it's not only shape that's meant by that, right? But ratio, order, and so on, right? Okay. So do you know what a Manhattan is? Some kind of drink. I don't know what's in it. Yeah. From an island. Well, it's made out of, you know, the original form is made out of rye whiskey, right? And sweet vermouth, right? Mm-hmm. Okay? But you've got to combine them in a certain what? Ratio. Yeah. And the classical one is two to one, right? Oh. Two parts rye whiskey to one part sweet vermouth, huh? Okay. Now, what's a stinger? I love it, right? Yeah. Now, the matter of a stinger is different from a Manhattan. You use brandy, huh? And white creme de menthe. But you combine them also in the ratio of what? Two to one. Two parts brandy to one of white creme de menthe. Now, if you made it the reverse, or if you made it even half and half, it'd be too sweet, you know, kind of cloying, right? Mm-hmm. So, um, it's got to be put in the proper, what, ratio, right? Okay? And you know, there's a little big difference in the actual thing between carbon dioxide, which is, I guess, in our sodas or something, and carbon monoxide, right? Yeah. Somewhat, yes. The ratio of one, that ratio of one to one will kill you, right? By the ratio of what? Two to one will kill you, right? Okay? So you've got to watch out for that ratio. Yeah. So now Pythagoras is touching upon a second kind of what? Cause. Cause form, right? Okay? And I was explaining there during the break there, I think I've done so as some of the people before. Um, the second kind of cause is not as well known in a way as the first, right? And I take this simple example, always to illustrate this. Let me just give it again here. Cause synthetic he says, what is worth saying can be said twice, he says. Okay? So, if you take the word cat, okay? It's funny, I was giving a lecture there at the, uh, conference there, and I was using this example of it, using the word cat, right? And then, uh, the Dominican, I was there, he's giving me a talk too. And he's using the word cat in this thing too. So, it's kind of funny, you know, sometimes he had to allude to the fact that I had used the example of this, he was using it to illustrate something else. But if you look at the word cat, huh, what is the most obvious dependence that the word cat has? Yeah, depends upon C, A, and T. And, um, if someone says it doesn't depend upon C, A, and T, well, we'll take away C, we'll take away A, we'll take away T, right? Obviously, it does depend upon C, A, and T, okay? So, that's the most known, you might say, the most undeniable dependence that the word cat has, is upon what it's made out of, which is like it's a map, right? Okay? Now, does it depend upon anything besides the letters? And you might see that first sight, that's all it depends upon, because if you take away C and T, you've got nothing left, right? Nothing else involved besides the letters, right? But then if you look around a little bit and you see maybe somewhere else the word act, right? You say, hey, I found something that has exactly the same letters as the word cat. But isn't the word cat, okay? Now you're seeing it has a second dependence, right? What does it depend upon? The order. Yeah. It's not quite as obvious it depends upon the order as it depends upon the letters, right? But the order now is the second kind of what? Clause, huh? Now once you see that the same, very same letters get into different orders, do the letters explain how they get into that order? Nope. No. It's not because they are those letters that they take on that order. Otherwise, you know, when I look back on it, it just becomes, this would come back and this would be over here, right? Yeah. They don't do that, right? Well, that started to make me think now of the third kind of clause, which would be the mover or the maker, right? In this case, the writer, right? Okay. And now the ability of the writer to form letters and to arrange them, right? Does that fully explain this? Well, I was mentioning in the break that my daughter went to Thomas Aquinas in college, and they're always talking about TAC, and I run into those guys. So I could put them in a quite different order, this order, this order. I could do this order, right? I'm really, my ability extends to all kinds of orders, right? Well, why did I put them in this order rather than that order and that order? Well, I wanted to talk about my favorite animal rather than about this college, right? Okay. Or about human acts or something, right? In ethics, I've never been doing that. So my ability to order the letters doesn't explain why, among all the orders I could put them in, I did this one, right? It's for the sake of talking about that animal or my pet or something or former pet. The same with this chair, right? The most obvious dependence this chair has is upon the wood that's in it, right? Because if you took all the wood out of it and maybe the screws, well, then you left, right? But then when you see that this is also made out of the same maybe wood, right, then you're forced to the second cause, right? And then how does it get into this shape? Because it's wood? Well, then this would start, you know, between the chair. I don't know. Well, then you're introduced to the maker, right? But it says it built and shaped the wood, explain why he put this shape among, see? And he could have given the chair instead of this, that shape, he could have given it this shape, right? You know? See? And he could have given the roof of the chapel to this, this shape. He could have given the roof of the chapel that shape, right, of the house, right? And he'd say, well, he could do that. He'd even tell the company, he'd say, hey, you're crazy, but I could do it. I'd be able to do it, right? So his ability to shape the wood doesn't explain why he gave it this shape or that shape, right? And I report us to the final cause at the end, right? So these guys start out looking for, what, matter first, and then they see the need a little bit for form, and then eventually they'll start to see the need for the mover, and then you get to Socrates and Plato, you start to see the end, right? So it's a beautiful way the human mind develops here. Now, Pythagoras, incidentally, he was started on the island of Samos, I think it was, off the coast of Asia Minor there. But then he migrated to what? Southern Italy. Southern Italy? Yeah. So in Southern Italy, the mainland there, he was, there was a center of Pythagorean studies and so on. And Plato, when he got fed up with Athens after the death of Socrates, he traveled over there and got a lot of his mathematical training, right, that comes out in his tomatoes and so on. So, Heraclitus is back on the coast of Asia Minor, but a little bit north of Miletus, the city of, what, Ephesus, right? But some time before St. Paul, right? More than 500, 600 years, right? 500 years at least. We have a few more fragments here from Heraclitus, though. In Heraclitus, I sometimes call the central thinker in human thought. And it's by analogy to the center of a circle, right? You say, well, you can take off in the center of a circle and go in all kinds of directions, right? And so Plato and Aristotle take off and go in one direction, right? And Hegel and modern times, and Marx, and so on, they go off in another direction a little bit. And the physicists go off in another direction, and so on, and the evolutionists go off in another direction, right? But he's a center, right? He's a central thinker in human thought. And we'll see many reasons for this as you start to study this man. Plato was taught by a student of Heraclitus, Cratchus, right? Cratchus? Cratchus, yeah. He was C-R-A-T-Y-L-U-S. And anyway, she must be spelled. And there's a dialogue with Plato called the Cratchulists, where Cratchulists and his more famous teacher, Socrates, right, have a conversation, right? And although Socrates seems to be put above Cratchulists, Aristotle in the metaphysics, he says, even in old age, Plato was still quoting Cratchulists and still following some of the thought of Cratchulists. But Cratchulists, of course, is just a student of Heraclitus, right? He's a calm, dimwit. But Heraclitus, he's a wit. Okay. Nature Allows to Hide, right? I love that book. Now, I think I mentioned to some of you one time here that I was in the bookstore, there were borders or something like that, I'm looking at the books in the scientific section, and there was a book entitled Nature Loves to Hide, and the guy who was not giving any credit to Heraclitus, at least I could see it in the beginning, but that was the name of the book, right? So it's become a very famous statement. Now, why does nature love to hide? Why does he say that? Because it's within. Yeah, yeah. See, the original meaning of nature, of course, is birth, right? And birth, the baby comes from what? Within. Within, yeah. As I say, my daughter just gave birth recently, and I guess they were kind of expecting a boy because he has so many girls. And he just had one boy, but the rest are girls. And so they had thought more about the boys' names, right? And so when Lady Sophia comes out there, you know, they were a little bit... Because you have to sign, you know, the name now before you leave, so... And so... But that's hidden, right? The baby inside. Especially, you know, in the old days when you didn't have others, you know, instruments to try to see what the baby was like in there. And then... Then the word nature was carried over to the source of the baby within the mother, right? But that's hidden, too, huh? And then it became generalized for any cause of motion and rest within a thing, right? Yeah. And then eventually nature comes to mean what a thing is. But always, this is something, what? Within, huh? So, that's why nature loves to hide, right? It's the outside of things that are known, right? Not hidden from us, huh? Now, there may be other reasons, too, why nature loves to hide. Tap with the fact that nature means first, what? Matter, and then what's in matter. And matter is a reason to hide things. It's not that actual. But the first reason why nature loves to hide is because it's something within, huh? And Shakespeare often points that out, huh? Like Iago, the villain there in Othello, right, huh? Mm-hmm. Okay? He speaks of his internal nature, willing, right? And because he wears it on his sleeve. Later on, you'll know what he is. But at first, it's hidden, right? Okay. Nature loves to hide. Now, nature, as they say, is defined by motion, right? It's the beginning and cause of motion and rest. Now, Heraclitus is, as you can see, the next group of fragments here. He especially is famous for emphasizing the change in the world around us, right? And he uses the image there of the river, right? That reality is like a river, which is always but flowing and never stays. what the same yeah okay so it is not possible he says to step twice into the same river now why does he say that yeah because not really the same water right river is water and it's not the same water right so have i crossed the mississippi or the hudson the same river many times no no now crotchless huh you're supposed to have said you can't step once into the same river right because as your foot what breaks the water and then goes down right the water's flowing on right so it's not the same water there at the surface you first broke in and when your foot reaches the the ground and they right okay notice how we sometimes use that same image you know we'll say the situation is fluid you hear that expression sometimes meaning it's not staying the same it's always as i describe it right okay now in the next uh group of fragments here uh dk 49 down to about dk 84 hey um the next thing that heraclitus is is famous for doing out is that in these always changing things right or in change itself he points out what seems to be a contradiction in these things right and some thinkers like parmenides say reacting to this right to what heraclitus says and what the racketeans said maybe others too besides we don't know about he's going to reject change right as an impossibility because it involves a contradiction now did heraclitus really think that change involves something being and not being at the same time in some way or is he just trying to give that appearance right and we'll leave it up in there a little bit right see because you have words where he seems to admit that something can both be and not be and parmenides uh he's not in this particular collection because parmenides is outside of natural philosophy because he says there is no change and nature is the beginning and cause of motion or change and rest so there's no change there's no nature right so you know but he's reacting to things like heraclitus is putting out here this appearance of what contradiction in change and those like uh plato and aristotle take off from heraclitus saying well there's an appearance of contradiction here but that can't really be in there right and therefore we don't yet understand this right that's the way they start to develop it right they untie that appearance of contradiction right but then thinkers like heraclitus i mean hegel see in modern times and carl marx following hegel right they see there really is a contradiction things right and dialectics in the hegelian sense and in the marxist sense um seems to be saying there really is a contradiction there so as comrade lenin said right uh dialectics is the study of the contradiction in the essence of things right okay they're taking off in a different direction right okay see how central thinker he is we step and do not step into the same rivers right he seems to be saying it is and is not right we are and we are not right okay so is this the same guy teaching us last week have i remained the same or have i changed since last week oh grandfather again yeah if i i've changed somewhat since last week right yeah lost some hair who knows else so changes staying the same or becoming other coming yeah so it's not the same guy you're teaching us last week is it i've become other since last week right and you guys too are you the same no you if all things are flowing you guys have changed too right i'm not here this week yeah yeah yeah so you're not the same guys as you know and then you say okay that seems to be correct just a minute now though there's the same guy teaching us right these are the same students students right so we are and we are not right so we are and we are not right so we are and we are not right right so we are and we are not right right so we are and we are not right right so we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we are and we So he seems to be admitting, right, that we are and we are not. But is that so? Did you really think that? There is something to it, but how far he would go, I don't know. But you can see it from what he's saying that there is something to that. Yeah. The sun is new every day. The sun is changing like everything else is changing, right? Yeah. Now, in the next fragment, you can see in a fragmentary form the induction, you know, that Heraclitus is making, right? And it's an induction that you find repeated by Socrates or Plato in the dialogue called the Phaedo. And that Aristotle in the first book of natural hearing will make again. And the induction is that change is between contraries, right? Change is from one contrary to another, right? And we even say in change that one contrary becomes the other. Cold things become warm, right? And the warm becomes cold, right? The wet dries out and the dry becomes wet, right? What dries out? Something wet, isn't it? And what do you moisten? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, what do you soften? What do you harden? Yeah. Yeah. Who becomes healthy? Who becomes sick? Yeah. So, inductively, right? An argument from many particulars to the general. It seems a change between contraries, right? And maybe you might start sometimes not from hot or cold, but from lukewarm. But that seems to be a mixture of hot and cold, right? So, everything seems to go back to what? The contraries, right? Now, Socrates, as I say, develops this idea there in the first argument for the immortality of the soul. He wants to reason from change being between contraries. And in the next fragment, the kind of puzzling application of this, the same in us is the living and the dead. Well, they're contraries, right? Well, they're contraries, right? They awaken the sleep, the young and the old. For the former having changed are the latter, and again, these having changed are the former. Now, notice, in speech we say that the living become dead, right? Or the hard becomes soft, right? Or the cold become hot, huh? Now, what does the word become mean? Comes to be, right? Now, if the cold comes to be hot, then the cold would be hot, right? That's what we seem to be saying, right? Now, if you don't mean that, the cold comes to be hot, right? Why do you say it? And if the cold doesn't become hot, then the cold will always be cold. Won't be any change anymore. Right? Okay. Now, a very strong example of this, that one contrary is the other, right? Because it comes to be there, is day and night, right? And so he makes fun of the poet, right? I guess Hesiod has a work called days and nights, doesn't he, right? And I don't know, I suppose he tells you, you know, get up and do your work in the day and get it done during the day and then go to bed and get your rest at night time, right? So Hesiod, like most men, would talk about day and night as being not the same thing, right? And, of course, the poets are the great teachers of men. So Hesiod is the teacher of most men. They believe he knew very many things. But he didn't even know day and night. For they are one, right? He spoke as if there are two different things, right? Well, if day becomes night, night becomes day, then they are the same, right? Then day is night, right? It comes to be it, okay? Now, did Heraclitus really think that day and night are the same thing? Did he really think the living and the dead are the same, those who are awake and those who are asleep? Well, sometimes another group of fragments, the ones that deal with method and desire to know and so on, we have that fragment that I've quoted before, where Heraclitus says, we should not act and speak like those asleep. You know? For the sleep, for the waking, there is one world that is common, but when men fall asleep, it goes into a world of his own, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.