heraclitus.pdf

What is an informal fallacy? Preposterous ninny! You ask a lot of questions, don’t you?

There are two general types of fallacies, formal and informal. Formal fallacies are errors in logic that are due entirely to the structure of the premises in the argument, without concern for their content – meaning that even if the premises are true, the argument still cannot support its conclusion. At this point, we need not concern ourselves with them. They are dealt with more fully in a later section, but only after I have taken the time to explicate upon the proper forms.

Informal fallacies occur when the “reasoning” or rationale behind the specific content of a premise is illogical – i.e. the support for the argument relies on rhetoric (appeals to emotion) or faulty logic. While these arguments also possess a particular form, one cannot tell from the form alone that the argument is fallacious.

Below is a list of some common fallacies. The list isn’t exhaustive; however, the hope is that if you learn to recognize some of the more common fallacies, you’ll be able to avoid being fooled by them. This is not only of help in combatting arguments, it’s good for your psychological well being. According to Rational emotive behavioral therapy (REBT), the root cause of psychopathology is irrational beliefs. In other words, learning logic won’t only help you win some arguments, but it may help you to live a healthier life in general! Cognitive and REBT therapists present their clients with a brief list of irrational thoughts. I present here a much more detailed list.

Types of informal fallacies

Other than the Self Refuting statement, there are six main types of informal fallacies. They are:
Fallacies of Relevance
Fallacies of Presumption
Fallacies of Weak Induction
Causal Fallacies and…
Fallacies of Ambiguity and Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy.

SELF REFUTING FALLACY – If you have read the section on the axioms of classic logic , you learned that classic Aristotelian logic is based on the law of non contradiction ¬ (P + ¬ P) , which in turn is defended through retortion – according to defenders of classical logic, denials of the law of non contradiction rely on the LNC. In the words of Aristotle, the law of non contradiction delcares: “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time (without falling to a contradiction)” And it follows from Aristotle’s view of logic that all contradictions are false.

Therefore, the Self Refuting fallacy is the simplest fallacy to understand – it is a statement that renders itself false by containing within itself a(n) (internal) contradiction. Because these argument trip over themselves, they are usually humorous in nature. Here is my all time favorite, from the biblical book of Numbers, supposedly written by Moses. I will let Thomas Paine explain it for you:

“But granting the grammatical right, that Moses might speak of himself in the third person, because any man might speak of himself in that manner, it cannot be admitted as a fact in those books, that it is Moses who speaks, without rendering Moses truly ridiculous and absurd: — for example, Numbers xii. 3: “Now the man Moses was very MEEK, above all the men which were on the face of the earth.” If Moses said this of himself, instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the most vain and arrogant coxcombs; and the advocates for those books may now take which side they please, for both sides are against them: if Moses was not the author, the books are without authority; and if he was the author, the author is without credit, because to boast of meekness is the reverse of meekness, and is a lie in sentiment

Here is another favorite self refutation. This is from the creationist “scientist” Henry Morris:

Thus there was no death before sin entered the world. The finished creation was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), with an abundance of food and all other provisions for man and animals. There was certainly no struggle for existence, or survival of the fittest, for every creature was created fit for its own environment. When Adam sinned, God brought the curse of decay and death not only upon Adam, but also upon his dominion (Genesis 3:17-20, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, Romans 8:20-22).

In this passage, Morris tells us that there was no death in the world – but that people still ate food which is in this case would presumably be plant life, a living substance that died when it was consumed. One cannot deny that there was ‘death’if one maintains that there was ‘food’, unless of course, one redefines what the term ‘death’ means. (See the ad hoc fallacy)

Fallacies of Relevance – Rhetoric

Rhetoric is an attempt to appeal to one’s emotions rather than one’s reason. Rhetorical appeals are therefore logical fallacies when one presents them as ‘reasons’ to accept an assertion. Rhetorical appeals are logically irrelevant because they don’t attempt to state premises that prove or disprove a conclusion.

APPEAL TO FORCE – AD BACULUM We can call this the ‘Sledgehammer Fallacy” – Argument through intimidation. Threat or harm is promised or implied to the listener if the conclusion is not accepted. The crudest of crude fallacies and the “logic” of that oafish overvalued officer, Major West…

Smith! Concede that Platonic Reals have an existence external from the mind!

Example: “All those who refuse to accept the truth of the bible will burn in Hell.”

What to look for: In an appeal to force, you are never given any reason for believing – instead you are given a reason to comply.

APPEAL TO FAITH The claim that you can possess truth or knowledge with faith. Theistic, or non contingent faith, is a claim that one does not need justification to hold a belief. It is not an epistemological position, it is a rejection of epistemology itself. Therefore faith cannot stand in as a premise in a logical argument.

See also the arguent to uncertainty and the universal skepticism fallacy.

The “appeal to faith” is often used in a different way by theists – who claim that all forms of thought rest upon faith. This claim, which was created to undermine logic itself, is false. Classical logic rests on axioms, not faith. Other forms of logic, such as natural or propositional logic, rely on self declared definitions.

The axioms of classical logic are not merely beliefs without justification, they are self evident, implied in all propositions (indeed, classic logic relies on them), and defended through retortion (see above). As Ayn Rand notes concerning the axioms of her metaphysics, axioms are supported by the fact that we cannot know anything, or make any claims, without illustrating their veracity.

Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought (i.e., a desire) and produces intransigence. Faith has never been shown to be anything more than believing what you want to believe no matter the reality. Historically, people “of faith” have used the very next appeal that follows “to alter the opinions” of their opponents.

What to look for: Faith is not a means to gain knowledge. Faith is simply an assertion that one can accept a belief without justification. It’s an end to rational thought, not a beginning. By Nathaniel Branden:

One of the most grotesque instances of the stolen concept fallacy may be observed in the prevalent claim—made by neo-mystics and old-fashioned mystics alike—that the acceptance of reason rests ultimately on “an act of faith.”

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. “Faith in reason” is a contradiction in terms. “Faith” is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of “faith” cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason.

One will search in vain for a single instance of an attack on reason, on the senses, on the ontological status of the laws of logic, on the cognitive efficacy of man’s mind, that does not rest on the fallacy of the stolen concept. The fallacy consists of the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends.

This fallacy must be recognized and repudiated by all thinkers, if truth and reality are their goal.

In the absence of such recognition and repudiation, the gates are left open to the most lethal form of mysticism—the mysticism that postures as “science.”

Who are the neo-mystics’ victims?

Any college student who enrolls in philosophy courses, eagerly seeking a rational, comprehensive view of man and existence—and who is led to surrender the conviction that his mind can have any efficacy whatever; or who, at best, gives up philosophy in disgust and contempt, concludes that it is a con game for pretentious intellectual role-players, and thus accepts the tragically mistaken belief that philosophy is of no practical importance to man’s life on earth.

APPEAL TO RIDICULE The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for argument. APPEAL TO PITY – AD MISERICORDIAM More rhetoric. Here, a blatant attempt to invoke sympathy is offered. The protypical example is the downtrodden employee who implores his boss to give him a raise so that he can take bettercare for his starving children. He has not given his boss a reason why he deserves an increase of salary, only a reason why he needs more money. Note well the difference.

Warning catchphrase Simple – Ad Misericordiam arguments usually focus on the happenstance or misfortune of a person or people and draw upon feelings of guilt.

APPEAL TO SUPERIORITY Akin to the appeal of snobbery, this is an appeal that claims that one’s proposition must be true, since it is is not shared by the common man – but only held within intellectual circles. See the next fallacy. APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE AD POPULUM Rhetoric again. Here, the listener’s desire to be loved, accepted or respected is played to… Advertising makes heavy use of this appeal. The appeal to vanity, and the appeal to snobbery/superiority are two common types used by advertisers. However, the most common approach would be the the bandwagon appeal which implies that some claim must be true, because everyone of any note or importance believes it. But in an argument, it doesn’t matter who believes in a claim or how many people believe in a claim, what matters are the reasons why they believe in the claim.

Warning catchphrase Ad populum arguments prey upon our lesser side our pride, our fears, and our petty hatreds.

Note: ‘Ad populum’ is often equated with ‘ad numerum, which follows. Some hold the two to be identical and therefore, interchangable, others hold that a true bandwagon fallacy makes an appeal only to others in the immediate vicinity (those around the bandwagon) whereas the appeal to numbers cites overall numbers of people who hold to a belief. Feel free to use the terms as you wish.

ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERUMThis fallacy is closely related to the ad populum fallacy. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. There is at least a weak correlation between the number of people who accept a proposition and it’s validity – but correlation is not causality.

ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEAM A fallacious argument is more likely to be accepted as true if it is repeated over and over. We can also refer to this process as Propaganda. Joseph Goebbels discovered that if something is repeated enough times, people will eventually come to accept it as true, even unquestionable.

Here is a nice example of this fallacy. It appeared on a web site of a “martial arts master” who argued over the existence of something called “Qi”. The page is a good example of logical fallacies, so check it out here.

If Qi were just a concept, why would there be such a plethora of information regarding it’s importance and use?

APPEAL TO WONDER This is the fallacy that declares that any statement which appears too novel, too wonderful or astounding, must be false, simply because of this sensation of wonder or amazement. There is nothing wrong with this sense of wonder causing us to take pause, and express doubt, but to rely solely on this sensation as a proof is a logical fallacy. A nearly identicial fallacy is the appeal to incredulity. This fallacy occurs when we assert an argument is false because the conclusion seems too incredible to us. A very famous example would be Einstein’s denial of quantum theory – “god does not play dice with the universe!” The fact that a conclusion appears incredible to us is not a fit refutation for an argument. What matters is whether the evidence justifies the premises of an argument, and whether the argument form is sound. If the argument is valid and sound, it’s conclusion is true, no matter how perturbing the conclusion is…

The fact that a conclusion appears incredible to us is meaningless. What matters is whether the evidence justifies the premises of an argument, and whether the argument form is sound. If both of the facts are true, then the argument is valid and sound, no matter how perturbing the conclusion is.

Let me speak for the theistic side, for a change. There have been times – when I’ve studied brain anatomy and have had the thought “This is just a bit too much to have come about by natural processes”

So I can appreciate how others get this sense too. A sense of wonderment.

But seeing as a sense of wonder only speaks to being overwhelmed by the limits of our understanding, we can’t allow this sense of wonderment put a stop to our striving to understand. Yes I can appreciate how the “complexity” of the world can lead a theist to say “goddidit”. But we would only be reifying our ignorance if we were to stop here. It would be a sign of of intellectual laziness to stop at this sensation, and to call it a discovery – or an answer.

So while I can see how both the uneducated and the informed can wonder at complexity, but to say things are “too complex” is only to say that we we find it marvelous and wonderous.

APPEAL TO NORMALITY This is the fallacy of believing that any behavior that becomes a common practice or a tradition must be valid. It’s based on the rather sound concept of “what works must be true.” However, further review often uncovers that what “works” often doesn’t work. See the next fallacy for more on this.

Another point is that we often make a lot of culturally based assumptions on just what is normal. And they rely on limited knowledge. It was once normal to own slaves and beat your children, for example. But not many today would argue that those once normal practices were correct. See the Appeal to Natural Law fallacy.

APPEAL TO ANTIQUITY Argumentum ad antiquitatem
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it’s old, or because “that’s the way it’s always been.” This mindset was directly responsible for the error of the scholastics, who held that Aristotle and Plato had to be correct in their views on science and nature, because they were venerable philosophers from a golden age. In fact, this very fallacious mindset is behind the entire concept of a ‘golden age’. The reality is that the past was a brutal, primitive and ignorant world to live in.

The opposite of Argumentum ad Novitatem.

Example: “For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ. Christianity must be true, to have persisted so long even in the face of persecution.” Response: It is not the antiquity of a tale that is an evidence of its truth; on the contrary, it is a symptom of its being fabulous.
- Thomas Paine, Age of Reason

ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITATEM This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it’s the fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else. Yes, it’s true that our distant ancestors were brutes, but not every new idea is automatically better than what they came up with.

“Christianity is just the thought of the ancients. Modern science is latest way of thinking, and therefore the best.”

APPEAL TO WEALTH Argumentum ad crumenam
The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right. The opposite is known as Argumentum ad Lazarum. Example:
“Microsoft software is undoubtedly superior; why else would Bill Gates have got so rich?” APPEAL TO POVERTY Argumentum ad lazarumThis is the fallacy of assuming that someone poor is more virtuous than someone who is wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Crumenam. For example:

“Monks are more likely to possess insight into the meaning of life, as they have given up the distractions of wealth.”

Poor people can be stupid too, and often are. This fallacy stems from a psychological phenomena: we tend to find that our own characteristics and strongpoints are the most important characteristics and strongpoints for everyone. If you are poor, you’re likely to find wealthy people to be inferior to you in some way. APPEAL TO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES This argument is based on holding that what the person “wishes” to be true, must be true, otherwise, some dire consequence would exist and this is too unappealing to accept.

Example:

A God offering us eternal life must exist; because if He didn’t, where will I end up after I die?

As I mention elsewhere, a useful tool for uncovering the fallacy of an argument is the use of substitution – which provides a pathway to a reductio ad absurdum. In substitution, we simply exchange one arguent with identical form, for another:

A parachute offering me an escape from the horrible fall I am now experiencing after being tossed from the empire state building must exist; because if it doesn’t, what will happen to me when I hit the ground?

Clearly, our own hopes and desires for a thing does not make it so.

Here is a classic example of this fallacy :

“If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for THIS life we have hope in Christ, then we are to be pitied more than all men.” (1 Corinthians 15:13-19, NIV) In other words, if you don’t believe christ was raised from the dead, then the whole christian belief system is a farce. Believe, or you have to face the fact none of this is actually true. Quite a “confession” from Paul.

Warning signals Watch out for an opponent who confuses “what he desires” for “what is true.” When this occurs, disengage from the converstation, as you are wasting your time, and his.

AGAINST (TO) THE PERSON one of the few fallacies known better by its Latin nomenclature than its English equivalent, the Ad hominem fallacy occurs when one makes an issue of the arguer himself, rather than his argument. There are valid forms of ad hominem – in the case of testimony, the character of testifier is the source of credibility for the claim. However, to doubt or reject a valid deduction based on the source, is an ad hominem fallacy. For more on legitimate forms of ad hominem, see below.

Types of Ad Hominem fallacies

The most crude form is AD HOMINEM ABUSIVE which is a direct assault upon another’s personage, during an argument.

“The fool sayeth in his heart that there be no God.”

Simply being insulted by your opponent is NOT ad hominem. It’s an INSULT. To refer to an insult as ad hominem is to misapply this fallacy. To put it briefly, If I were to call, say, this robot:
a clinking, clanking collection of carroded cathodes, this would merely be an insult, and a well deserved one at that. If I were to reject one of his emotionally driven arguments because he’s a clinking, clanking, collection of carroded cathodes, I would be commiting an ad hominem fallacy. Questioning a debater’s motives is AD HOMINEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL . Freud’s famous attack on the motives of Christians, in: Civilization and its Discontents, can be taken as an ad hominem circumstantial attack – if one refuses to acknowledge Freud’s comments that the question of the validity of Christianity has been settled elsewhere.

Ad Fidentia (Against Self-Confidence) occurs when a a debater attacks his opponent’s confidence instead of the argument. Ad Fidentia is a fallacy, because however unconfident a person may be in their assertions, their ideas may still be correct. We must challenge facts and logic, and not people.

Claiming that an idea is false because of it originates from a certain person or institution, without any other evidence is another ad hominem attack,known as the GENETIC FALLACY – claiming that an idea’s origin somehow invalidates its logic. The classic exampele is “Hitler/Mussolini/Bin Laden says 2+2=4, but it must be untrue, because he was a Nazi/tyrant/terrorist.”

POISONING THE WELL Is a form of ad hominem similar to the genetic fallacy, wherein your opponent attempts to weaken your argument with points that are true, but which are extraneous to the current argument. A great example can be heard by listening to Sean Hannity, an ABC political pundit, who can’t help but throw in every supposed Clinton scandal (proven or unproven) into every discussion about Clinton.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION is used in two general forms: one, the crude form, directly links the arguer to some unsavory individual, such as pointing out that your opponent is one of “Newt Gingrich’s boys”. In the less crude, more indirect form, your opponent links you to another who might not necessary be in disfavor, but might also support views that are more extreme as yours. For example: “My opponent frequently sides with Governor Ventura, who is on record for legalized marijuana.” Unless the opponent also explicitly agrees with the legalization of marijuana, this argument is the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

Another more specific form of ad hominem abusive is known as AD FEMINAM Appealing to irrelevant personal considerations concerning women,especially prejudices against them. – Always in touch with my feminine side…

Lastly, TU QUOQUE or “You too” fallacies, concern arguments that are used to justify or defend one’s wrong-doing by claiming that an opponent has committed a similar crime. This is more commonly known as “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Warning As stated above, there are legitimate forms of ad hominem. This second, valid form of the ad hominem is discussed in John Locke’s ‘An Essay Concerning Human Understanding’ The valid form: “(It is legitimate) to press a (testifier) with (the) consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions and to show that these claims are mutually exclusive.” Another form of a valid argument ad hominem, would be an examination of the credibility of a witness providing testimony. Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments. In logic, an argument is said to be valid if the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises. …

Person ‘A’ committed perjury when he said ‘Q’
We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed
Therefore, A ’s testimony for Q should be rejected

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY – ad verecundiam occurs when an arguer cites an authority who is not an expert at the subject at hand. This fallacy does not occur if the authority is legitimately an expert in the field of discussion. Even citing a reliable authority, on its own, does not make a deductive argument valid, however. APPEAL TO ANONYMOUS AUTHORITY – Closely related to the above fallacy. This fallacy occurs whenever anyone sites an anonymous source as evidence for their claims. We cannot allow anonymous sources to be used as evidence because there is no way to verify the veracity of the source. You’ll most likely here this fallacy stated thusly: “Scientists say…. or “leading experts agree that…”. Oddly enough, those citing the bible commit this fallacy, unless they are citing one of Paul’s works, because every other book of the bible is written anonymously.

Fallacies of (False)Presumption

In fallacies of presumption, the arguer has made an epistemological, or ideological assumption that is in error. An epistemological error concerns beliefs towards how one learns about the world. For example, some people believe we can learn things “emotionally.” This is simply untrue. There is no such thing as an “emotional truth” only things we cognitively hold as true concordant with strong emotional feeling.

An ideological assumption concerns beliefs towards how logic and reason work, and their value. For example, some theologians and mystics claim that science or logic or even reason itself is only illusion. This is simply incorrect. I repeat here the words of Ethan Allen, the revolutionary war hero, who states why:

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.

With this renewed acceptance of the validity of reason, and thereby logic, we proceed to the following section. FALLACY OF MAGICAL THINKING (OR THE FALLACY OF LABELING) Similar to reification, the fallacy of magical thinking occurs when a debator claims that by merely naming or providing a name for a phenomenon, he has in fact provided an argument in favor of his position.

“There are, of course, many who regard the concept of God as an exceedingly simple explanation of everything, and who regard scientific elucidations as either incomplete or ponderous. However, that is a self-delusion. Such views are generally held by people who do not understand the scientific method. Indeed, to believe that the assertion that God is an explanation (of anything, let alone everything) is intellectually contemptible, for it amounts to an admission of ignorance packaged into the pretence of an explanation. To aver that ‘God did it’ is worse than an admission of ignorance, for it shrouds ignorance in deceit.”
“Religion – The Antithesis to Science”, Oxford Chemistry Professor, Peter Atkins

Magical thinking is akin to the problem of “labeling” – the fallacious assumption that providing a name for an observed phenomenon provides us with information. SPECIAL PLEAD Special pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules to others while claiming special dispensation or exemption for themselves without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

Special pleading also occurs when when a person in logical discourse asserts that their claims lie outside of reason or logic itself.

Example: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the same person? Answer: You don’t grasp the ineffable mystery of the trinity.

You don’t have to grasp the ineffable mystery, (and as stated, your opponent doesn’t grasp it either!) If your opponent wants to maintain a belief in an argument, he must provide you with his evidence, not his own explicit admission that he has no evidence!

Remember that in logical debate, the first rule is to present your reason for why you hold a belief. Stating that you don’t know the reason is not a reason! We cannot invalidate reason simply because reason doesn’t give us what we want:

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.
Ethan Allen, Revolutionary war hero

From the Nikor Project (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html): From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the ‘Principle of Relevant Difference’. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them.

There are cases which are similar to instances of Special Pleading in which a person is offering at least some reason why he should be exempt but the reason is not good enough to warrant the exemption. This could be called “Failed Pleading.”

Warning signals You’ve just asked your opponent for his reason for mainting his proposition. He tells you the only problem is you – you just can’t grasp, comprehend, or admire that the phenomena in question is a paradox that is (safely) beyond science or beyond reason. He is special pleading you.

“EMOTIONAL REASONING” People do not, and can not reason with their “hearts.” There is no such thing as “emotional truth” When a person states:

“I can’t explain it, but I just feel this is true. Everyone has a right to their opinion.”

The person is not providing a reason for their belief, he’s conceding that he has no reason at all. According to the tenets of logic, he is committing a logical fallacy akin to a naked assertion (see below) when he maintains a right to believe what he believes is correct. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but an opinion is not an argument. There may be some confusion here about the existence of “intellectualizing” or being “intellectually aware” of some fact about ourselves, yet not “emotionally aware.” This is a poetic distinction, but it is cognitively incorrect. When one intellectually states an awareness, but does not “feel it true” one is merely stating that they do not believe in what they are stating. One knows of it, but does not know it. A good example would be the Christian theologian who studies Islam. He knows some of the facts about Islam, but does not believe in their tenets, save for where they align with christian tenets.

Emotions do not enter into it. When one states that one has an emotional “reason” for believing a proposition, they are confusing semantics on a par with that muttering mechanized misanthrope, the Robot. What they mean is that they have a emotional need to believe the proposition to be true, not a reason to believe it is true. Stated thusly, the “right to believe” is reduced to nonsense. Responsisble people recognize that we are not free to believe whatever we want to believe, and logically consistent people follow this tenet. Those who disagree must explain how they separate the true beliefs of Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden from those of “right thinking people” like… Pat Robertson.

UNIVERSAL SKEPTICISM NOTE: This is also listed in the RHETORICAL APPEALS section as the “APPEAL TO FAITH”. Universal skepticism is the claim that all epistemological positions – and reason itself, ultimately relies on faith – i.e we must have faith in first foundations in order to know anything.

By Nathaniel Branden: One of the most grotesque instances of the stolen concept fallacy may be observed in the prevalent claim—made by neo-mystics and old-fashioned mystics alike—that the acceptance of reason rests ultimately on “an act of faith.”

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. “Faith in reason” is a contradiction in terms. “Faith” is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of “faith” cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason.

One will search in vain for a single instance of an attack on reason, on the senses, on the ontological status of the laws of logic, on the cognitive efficacy of man’s mind, that does not rest on the fallacy of the stolen concept. The fallacy consists of the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends.

This fallacy must be recognized and repudiated by all thinkers, if truth and reality are their goal.

The claim that all beliefs ultimately rest upon an unsubstantiated, unjustified, desire driven beliefs (what we will properly defined as ‘non contingent faith’) is self refuting – If we cannot know anything with certainty, then we cannot be ascertained of the value of faith.

The “appeal to faith” is often used by fundamentalists to undermine classical logic (which they often confuse for “logic” period) or reason itself. Classical logic rests on axioms, not faith. Axioms do not need to be proven because they are self evident, atomic statements, that all other statements rely upon, which are defended through retortion – As held by defenders of classical logic, any attempt to refute an axiom leads to a self refutation. As Ayn Rand notes, axioms are supported by the fact that we cannot know anything,or make any claims, without illustrating their veracity. For these reasons, accepting axioms is not equitable with holding to a belief through non contingent faith.

Non contingent faith is simply the maintanence of a belief despite the lack of evidence, or even in the face of negating evidence. As we see in this assault on logic, to confuse faith for a reasoned assumption is a gross error.

Faith is not a means to gain knowledge. Faith is simply an assertion that one can accept a belief without justification. It’s an end to rational thought, not a beginning. Faith has never been shown to be anything more than believing what you want to believe no matter the reality. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence. Historically, people “of faith” have used the very next appeal that follows “to alter the opinions” of their opponents.

NAKED ASSERTIONS I am truly stunned that I have to even list this as a fallacy, but my experiences arguing with others shows this is clearly necessary.

.

A “naked” assertion is simply an assertion without any evidence, proof, or other support. It is usually based on the false presumption that since we all have “a right to an opinion”, that this implies that our opinions must be automatically accepted as valid. What invariably proceeds the blunder of a “naked” assertion is the logical fallacy of “shifting the burden of proof” which further illustrates that the arguer has no concept of logic.

“Archer says, “Without a good and holy God in heaven above, however, there is no solution to be found in freethinking or any other kind of thinking.” Again no proof or justification is provided. Just another assertion that is supposed to be sufficient unto itself. Too bad I didn’t think of that approach! Instead of devoting so much time and effort to reading and research, I could have just forgotten about all my studies, thrown away my notes, discarded my citations, and told it like it is. That certainly would have been easier.” – Dennis McKinsey from Bible Errancy (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/errancy/issues/iss160.htm)

FALLACY OF BELIEF AS PROOF Closely related to the fallacy of a naked assertion is the fallacy of belief as proof. In fact, this fallacy is often used to support a naked assertion! This fallacy occurs when one maintains that one’s strong conviction is itself a proof, without any other evidence. As Sigmund Freud wrote in Future of an Illusion

“Your own convictions can not serve as proofs for me.”

This fallacy stems from the confusion of that the intensity of one’s beliefs indicates the veracity of one’s beliefs. Try to remember that intensity of a belief in no way correlates with the veracity of a belief. Billions of people are sure and wrong. Every christian who knows that the christian god is real also “knows” that there are a billion Muslim fools. ARGUMENT FROM IGNORNANCE An argument to ignorance occurs when one makes a positive claim based on a lack of information. Basically, the claimant assumes that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. But you can’t make claims without reason or evidence. All a lack of information can tell you is that you do not know. A claim’s truth or falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence for the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim.

The weakness of my argument does not imply the strength of yours – Sigmund Freud

An argument from ignorance often is merely an expression of one’s desires and little more. The Skeptic’s dictionary calls it “wishful thinking”. See also “special plead”, “shifting the burdon of proof”, “correct by default”, and “argument from uncertainty”.

FALLACY OF THE STOLEN CONCEPT The fallacy consists of the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the fundamental characteristics or axioms on which it logically and/or genetically depends.

Example written by Nathaniel Branden:

One of the most grotesque instances of the ’stolen concept fallacy’ may be observed in the prevalent claim-made by neo-mystics and old-fashioned mystics alike-that the acceptance of reason rests ultimately on “an act of faith.” Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. “Faith in reason” is a contradiction in terms. “Faith” is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of “faith” cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason-it is the revolt against reason.

One will search in vain for a single instance of an attack on reason, on the senses, on the ontological status of the laws of logic, on the cognitive efficacy of man’s mind, that does not rest on the fallacy of the stolen concept. This fallacy must be recognized and repudiated by all thinkers, if truth and reality are their goal.

In the absence of such recognition and repudiation, the gates are left open to the most lethal form of mysticism-the mysticism that postures as “science.”

Who are the neo-mystics’ victims?

Any college student who enrolls in philosophy courses, eagerly seeking a rational, comprehensive view of man and existence-and who is led to surrender the conviction that his mind can have any efficacy whatever; or who, at best, gives up philosophy in disgust and contempt, concludes that it is a con game for pretentious intellectual role-players, and thus accepts the tragically mistaken belief that philosophy is of no practical importance to man’s life on earth.

THE CENTIPEDE FALLACY The centipede fallacy is closely related to the God of the Gaps/argument from ignorance fallacious line of reasoning, and it occurs when an arguer implies that your inability to explain how some concept or phenomena works implies that the phenomena therefore cannot work, or does not even exist. The name comes from fact that a centipede has no idea how to move hundreds of legs in unison, but he does so anyway.

Example: A christian stating that: “since science cannot totally explain how the universe got here, its theories are false” would commit this fallacy.

This fallacy does NOT apply when a debator points out that the phenomena in question cannot work because it violates an observable law of physics, or that the precepts it is based on are in contradiction. In this case, he is not commiting a fallacy… and in fact, if his premises are true, he is right – the phenomena is untrue.

Sorry, but that is now logic goes. Also see the reification error, for another similar fallacy.

THE PLATONIC FALLACY The Platonic fallacy is a specific form of Centipede fallacy, and in turn is a form of an argument from ignorance. It is based on the notorious difficulty in defining a concept, such as ‘chair’ in a way that gives both necessary and sufficient conditions for chairs and only things which are chairs. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to use this notorious difficulty in applying categories to the real world as a grounds for holding to the concept of universals. There is a more parsimonious explanation: The reason we find the application of categories to the real world so daunting is because categories are themselves aritificial: we create them. The universe is a continuum, not a set of dichotomous categories, and as such, is under no obligation to fit into our categories

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. This is not the case. You can’t assume the truth of a proposition without proof. If we could assume truth until disproven, we would be stuck with the ridiculous conclusion that anything we said to be true, must be true, and would only become false when proven false. Reread the ignorantiam law if you are still confused.

This error, above nearly all others, indicates a lack of knowledge of the tenets of logic. Those who commit it require remedial learning.

FALLACY OF “CORRECT BY DEFAULT” This is a compound fallacy, a combination of the False Dichotomy fallacy and Arguing from Ignorance. The reasoning here goes as follows: One person in a debate puts forth a naked assertion that their position is true and demands that the the opponent provide a satisfactory argument for his position. He then holds that the opponent cannot provide an alternative explanation. Therefore, the first arguer claims that his position MUST be true, since there is no alternative explanation. However, the arguer has not put forth any reason why his explanation is true, he merely assumes it is correct by default. The absence of other proposed explanations does not imply validity for his assertion. If this were true, and we followed this logic to its conclusion, we end up with this absurdity: ANY first explanation for a new phenomena must be true, since at that time no alternative exists!.

Here is a nice example of a response to this fallacy, by Brooks from the Bogus Beyond Belief website:

You keep saying that I am reading too much into your questions, implying that you are merely asking them out of idle curiosity. Hardly. You are attempting to use the so-called moral “argument” for God. You apparently hope that I will be unable to explain the basis for human morality, and that you then will be able to insert “God” as an explanation, sort of a round-about way of promoting Christianity. It is a great ploy to use, because it doesn’t require you to provide those troublesome things known as real arguments and evidence. It relies on a lack of an explanation from the other side. There is a problem, however. You say that you “believe” that morality comes from “God.” This is your *opinion*-you have not supported it with any evidence yet. Until you provide me with some evidence or arguments for this statement, it remains your opinion and nothing else, and this is true “whether it is acknowledged or not.”

ARGUING FROM UNCERTAINTY – This is a bit different from “arguing from ignorance” (See argument from ignorance). Arguing from uncertainty occurs when one attempts to use the tentative nature of inductive claims as a reason to reject an inductive claim. However, the simple existence of doubt, in of itself, is not a reason to reject an inductive claim. Inductive claims are accepted or rejected as per their evidence as is any claim in a logical argument.

Consider the following table:

Here we can see that whereas mountains of evidence exist to support the notion of gravity, there is but a dirth of evidence to support “Big Foot’ Therefore, while both ideas lie along the continuum, they are hardly equitable in truth value. We can reasonably reject Big foot claims, while we can reasonably accept claims about gravity.

STACKING THE DECK From the book “Attacking Faulty Reasoning”, 5th Ed. by T. Edward. Stacking the deck is a form of selective attention, where one studiously ignores counter evidence to one’s position. Damer writes: A method of thinking that allows blind adherence to claims or to assumptions from which such claims may be inferred without proper attention to counterevidence obstructs the discovery of truth. Such thinking also violates the principle of fallibility, which says that every nondefinitional claim has the inherent possibility of being false.

FALLACY OF THE GOLDEN MEAN Just being a moderate, or a realist (a position between optimism and pessimism) does not mean that one is correct.

“He’s a Capitalist, she’s a Comunist. Both are extreme positions, but I’m smack dab in the middle, so I must be right.”

FALLACY OF “THE LAW OF AVERAGES” This fallacy is also known as the Gamblers fallacy, and it is a fallacy many of us commit! Author A. K. Dewdney, from his book “200% of Nothing” speaks about a form of ignorance nearly as bad as illiteracy – innumeracy, or the ignorance of math. A particular form of innumeracy is citing the “law of averages” or the belief that if some statistically measured event has happened an inordinate amount of times, it must soon stop. A good example would be the roulette player who knows that black must now come up after a string of reds. The contraposition is that if such a event has yet to occur, it must now be “due.” This mentality is seen most in sports announcing, where an announcer might say “Jeter hit .320 on the season. He is currently in the middle of a slump, 1-11. He’s due!”

The fact is, logically, every single event is separate from prior events. If Jeter’s real average is .320, then at every at bat he has, approximately, a 30% chance of getting a hit. (This leaves out individual differences in pitchers, who may reduce or increase this percentage.)

THE CONJUNCTION FALLACY This fallacy occurs when we presume the following equation to be true:

P(A + B) > P(A)

Ok, what doest that mean?

I just tossed some symbollic language at you before I taught it to you. In order to understand this equation, use this key: P= probability, A, B = Propositions, and += AND, i.e. both A and B together. So the equation reads: the probabilty of a premise, in conjunction with another premise, being true is greater than the probabilty of just the one premise being true.

Stated abstractly, this seems a ridiculous error, and an easy fallacy to avoid. Assuming there is no causal connection between B and A, how can the possiblity of both premises A AND B being true be more likely than just premise A , being true?! Yet, when we use specific premises, the conjunction fallacy seems a much more confusing issue:

Go ahead and try this one out:

Bill is a boring guy. Knowing this, which of the statements is more likely to be true?

Bill plays Jazz trumpet
Bill plays jazz trumpet, and is an accountant

Are you tempted to say the second answer is more likely? Of course you are. This occurs because we never look at facts without using prior knowledge. We use schemas or stereotypes based on experience, to evaluate any facts. We “know” that boring people are often not jazz muscians, so in order to accept that a boring guy named Bill would play Jazz trumpet, we need to ground this incongrous knowledge with something that appears to be more likely to be true – i.e. that a boring guy is an accountant.

But the truth is, unless there is some strong causal relationship between being boring, playing the Jazz trumpet, and being an accountant, this is fallicious thinking. In lieu of any other information, it is more logical to state that the first response, “Bill plays Jazz trumpet”, is correct, because it only makes one assumption, not two!

My apologies to all accountants, everywhere, as well as any boring guys named Bill.

REIFICATION or Hypostatization
Reification error occurs when we treat an abstract concept like a concrete thing. Such as asking someone to define clearly what love is… Because the concept of “love” is multi-modal – emotional, cognitive, behavioral, with mulitple manners of being interepted and expressed, it cannot be defined as neatly as one might define a chair.

This error also occurs when one makes the claim that since one can imagine some phenomenon, then this phenomenon must exist. This argument was used by Saint Anselm. See my entry on Anselm on my “christian philosophers of the middle ages” page. Briefly, Anselm’s argument was that since he could imagine a perfect being, then he must exist, since its “more perfect” for him to actually exist “extramentally”.

The argument was so silly that it was refuted in his own time. Yet, 1000 years later, it still pops up. Here are the obvious refutations:

You can’t imagine a perfect being. When you try, you usually come up with a contradiction – i.e. an all good, all powerful god who is restrained for some reason against stopping evil (I.e. he will allow a child to be repeatedly gang-raped, before going to hell for non belief, so that you and I have free will.)

You imagine plenty of things that don’t exist: unicorns, pink elephants, well adjusted mature women… (ok, that last one strains credulity), so why is it that only this one imagination, god, must be true, while no one maintains that there are in fact unicorns?

This fallacy can be much like the centipede fallacy (See centipede fallacy) when it is then used to make the claim that the abstract concept that you cannot define, therefore cannot exist. See also ‘category error’

CATEGORY ERROR A category error occurs when one attempts to use an invalid sensory modality, or manner of knowing a particular phenomena, such as trying to hear light, or feel an idea, and then holds that the failure of this modality or manner of knowing to detect the phenomena proves that the phenomena either does not exist, or that it exists in some ‘immaterial form’.

An example would be the claim put forward by immaterialists that colors or numbers must be immaterial, since we cannot locate ‘color’ or “numbers” as physical objects within a brain. Yet the same arguer would not expect to find tiny actors and musicians inside his television set, he would expect to find electronics that interpret electrically transmitted data as audio-visual entities. So clearly there is some error here!

And there is. This error occurs because of a fallacy of composition – one presumes that the electro chemical impulses in neurons that make up ideas can be observed as if it were the number 2, rather than representative of the number 2, data points, which are inferred by the brain as the number 2.

See also: the fallacies of composition and division.

CIRCULAR LOGIC Any argument wherein the conclusion to an argument is held to support the premise just as the premises are held to support the conclusion. In short: using a conclusion as a premise.

Some people like to note that circular arguments are trivially valid. They are right: – circular arguments are valid – after all, since nothing new is generated in the concluson of a deductive arument, all deductive arguments are ‘circular’ – in that the conclusion is made up entirely from the premises. However, while it is true that nothing “new” is generated in the conclusion of a deductive argument, this would not make deductive arguments ‘circular’ in the sense of a circular logic fallacy. Here is why:

Deductive arguments work just like mathematical equations: a set of equivalencies – we can even reformulate such arguments as tautologies. Therefore, the point of such arguments is to demonstrate some equivalency (or lack thereof) between two categories. So, yes, plugging the same statement into both a premise and the conclusion gives us an equality, but the fact that that the same exact statement gives us an ‘equivalency’ is not exactly noteworthy! This is why we call this an informal fallacy – nothing is being proven here, we aren’t demonstrating an equivalancy, the equivalency is already a given prior to the argument!

Example: We must believe the there is a God because it is so taught in the Holy Scriptures, and we must believe in the veracity of the Holy Scriptures because they are the word of God”

Descartes, in his famous works to prove the existence of God actually quoted such an argument on the first page of his book “Meditations”, but he noted that others might consider it circular logic.

Example 2:
Person 1) I am the pope!
Person 2) Prove it
Person 1) dont you dare question the pope!

BEGGING THE QUESTION petito principii – A specific form of circular logic, begging the question occurs when one phrases a question so that a respondent is restricted to the answer an arguer already presumes will be found.

“If you don’t think God created the world, then who did?”

In other words, the arguer presumes that some intelligent entity did create the world. Another example is the famous Soviet claim that their cosmonauts proved the non-existence of God when they “failed to bump into any angels” while orbiting the earth – the question presumes that angels could only be within the range of space they traversed and that they must be corporeal (physical) beings.

Warning catchphrase – no general catchphrase – but watch for an overall restrictive nature to a question. Additional warning: Question begging may not even be a purposeful deception – A question phrased within the epistemological assumptions of an physicalist/atheist may be inherently question-begging to a fideistic theist. (I.e. “If God is real, point to him!”)

Special note: some use the above terms “circular logic” and “begging the question” interchangably. I don’t, but as any fool can see, I list them both here, and they are essentially identical. Some have serious psychological problems related to that, spend months worrying about, and dedicate web sites to the issue. I need not say anything else, as this is a case where the act itself is also it’s own punishment. COMPLEX QUESTION A 2 part question that , like begging the question, compels one to supply the answer sought. Everyone knows the most famous example of the complex question fallacy : “Do you still beat your wife?” If this is answered, it becomes an argument with the conclusion that you do in fact beat your wife. The problem is that a complex question is really two questions that demand one answer. This can be committed out of ignorance, but it can also be a purposeful deception.

Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established.

MEANINGLESS QUESTION Questions with statements that commit the existential error – i.e., items that do not exist. The ultimate example: What happens when an irresistible force meets and immovable object? The proper response to this question is to point out that if there were a irresistible force, ipso facto there could not be an immovable object (and/or vice versa.) Most meaningless questions are equally incoherent, because they are basically built upon contradictions, or make reference to non existent entities.

THE CATEGORICAL ERROR – This error occurs when an inappropriate measure is used in regards to a certain entity, or when one is operating in the wrong epistemological realm vis-a-vis the topic of discussion. Attempting to argue someone out of “love” is a categorical error, because one is attempting to use rational methods to make a person change a decision based on emotions.

FALSE DICHOTOMY OR EXCLUDED MIDDLE The fallacy is committed when an argument presents a supposedly valid disjunctive premise, (an “Either… Or” argument) wherein the items presented either are not jointly exhaustive (a third choice exists)and/or are not mutually exclusive (One could choose both).
Example: Either you agree with me, or you are wrong!

SHORT TERM VS. LONG TERM Special case of the excluded middle. Example: Why explore space exploration while there are homeless on the streets?

NATURAL LAW FALLACY / APPEAL TO NATURE (“Is implies Ought”) The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world — and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:

“The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It’s how the natural world works.”

Another form of appeal to nature is to argue that because human beings are products of the natural world, we must mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is ‘unnatural’:

“Of course homosexuality is unnatural. When’s the last time you saw two animals of the same sex mating?”

Of course, such arguers often also deny any connection to nature when it does not suit them, such as on evolution. (See inconsistency) Also, animals DO have homosexual encounters, so this entire argument is bullshit. Finally, this fallacy occurs any time something is identified as being good or desirable because it appears to be a natural characteristic

* Everyone is basically self-interested, therefore pursuing one’s self-interest is a virtue.
* Everyone wants to be wealthy so systems should be designed based on economic incentives.

Fallacy of Contradictory Premises Self-Contradictions are necessarily false; consequently, when an argument contains premises which contradict each other, no conclusion is possible. Any conclusion would evolve the “Fallacy Of Contradictory Premises”; that is, it would constitute a self-contradiction. When contradictory premises are present in an argument, one premise cancels out the other. It is possible for one or the other premises to be true, but not for both to be simultaneously true. Note the contradictory premises in the following questions: “If God is all powerful, can he put himself out of existence, then come to life with twice the power he had originally?” “Can God make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?” “Can God make a round square?” “What would happen if an irresistable force met an immovable object?” If you think it would be an inconceivable smash you are wrong THE “FALLACY” FALLACY Argumentum ad logicam
This is the “fallacy fallacy” of arguing that a conclusion is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.

“Take the fraction 16/64. Now, canceling a six on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4.”

“Wait a second! That answer must be wrong. You can’t just cancel the six!”

Fallacies of Weak Induction

Fallacies of Weak Induction

Fallacies of Weak Induction are at least a cut above fallacies of relevance. They succeed in at least making some connection from premise to conclusion, and tend to be more mature arguments. However, their premises are not strong enough to warrant the conclusion.

ACCIDENT or FALLACY OF A SWEEPING GENERALIZATION (Faulty Deduction)The logical fallacy of accident occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case, while disregarding major differences between the two cases. Usually his fallacy is used by moralists. i.e. The Bible says thou shall not kill, so abortion is morally wrong” What is assumed here is that abortion is killing, yet this is just an assumption. It may be that both comments are true, but the conclusion cannot be logically drawn here. HASTY GENERALIZATION or Small number bias converse accident a conclusion drawn upon a too small or non representative (not randomly drawn) sample makes the error of a hasty generalization. This usually is seen in arguers who overly depend upon Case study a matter of prefering interesting examples over boring statistics – (again, See Rush Limbaugh). It’s a truism that one good case study example impresses people more than a book full of statistics – a phenomenon well studied in psychology. But remember – one of the main reasons for the salience of a case study is its uniqueness.

Speaking of psychology, this fallacy is known in social psychology as the availability heuristic. In short, its the overuse of conclusions drawn from what is readily available in memory – which essentially is the small sample bias. It’s one of the reasons that good scientists stress the need to consider many hypotheses and the need to examine many sides of an issue.

Example: Consumer’s Report may say this radio is the safest, but my brother Irving got a shock when he used it – so I say it’s the worst”

One final note: In the 1920s, the people of the city of Chicago began to complain to their mayor about the incredible upsurge in crime in their city. The Mayor investigated the situation and found that, statisically, crime had dropped during his time in office. He presented this information publically, only to be booed. Finally, he went to the newspapers and asked them to play down their sensationalist style of presenting criminal news. Soon afer his public approval ratings sored…

FALLACY OF THE UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE / “A is based on B” fallacies / “…is a type of…” fallacies
These fallacies occur if you attempt to argue that things are in some way similar, but you don’t actually specify in what way they are similar. Examples: “Isn’t history based upon faith? If so, then isn’t the Bible also a form of history?”

Often the illogic of an argument if made more clear when we substitute. For example, consider the same argument form, with a substitution:

“Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn’t Islam a form of Christianity?”

OR

“Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren’t dogs a form of cat?”

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE – Argumentum ad ignorantiam occurs when one’s premises state that nothing is known with certainty about a subject, and one’s conclusion states something certain. The most common error is to claim that when a certain thesis is not proven, the opposite thesis must be true. The fallacy is not committed if qualified researchers have failed after extensive and exhaustive attempts to demonstrate some phenomena, and the conclusion at hand states that what they have attempted to demonstrate is not so.

In short, this argument occurs when it’s argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn’t been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn’t been proved true. (Note that this isn’t the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In science, we assume that an unproven is not true. In law, for example, you’re generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.) Here is an example:

“Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise.”

In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn’t occur. Also, this fallacy is recognized by the very ones who use it – in other circumstances. For, while an apologist may maintain that a belief in god is validated by a lack of negating evidence, the apologist himself has absolutley no problem whatsoever denying the reality of other gods without his requirement for negating evidence. See also: “Correct by Default Fallacy”

ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE The argument from silence is the opposite of the argument from ignorance. It is the claim that since a person or document does not state X, then this person or document was unaware of the existence of X.

In the fallacy of arguing from silence, we maintain that since a certain proposition was never elucidated by our opponent, that this necessarily means that the opponent did not hold, maintain or believe in that proposition. The fallacy also occurs when, in the lack of any evidence, we state that such and such an event could not have possibly happened, because of an absence of negating evidence.

IMPORTANT – An argument from silence does not occur if we point to a lack of evidence as meaning that such and such an event probably did not happen. This not a fallacy at all, but the scientific method at work. Additonally,the more important the proposed event was, the more glaring the lack of any evidence for said event becomes. Finally, I would like to point out that the argument from silence is often found in conspiracy theorizing. The argument is that a total lack of evidence only means that the conspirators are even more nefarious than first imagined! Here is an example of this fallicious line of thought:

An argument from silence by Minicus Felix, a first century Roman writer whoe wrote about early Christians, claiming that they sacrificed infants: “As for the initiation of new members, the details are as disgusting as they are well known. The novice himself, deceived by the coating of dough (covering a sacrificial infant), thinks the stabs are harmless. Then, it’s horrible! They hungrily drink the blood and compete with one another as they divide his limbs. And the fact they all share knowledge of the crime pledges them all to silence. On the feast-day they foregather with all their children, sisters, mothers, people of either sex and all ages. Now, in the dark, so favorable to shameless behavior, they twine the bonds of unnamable passion, as chance decides. Precisely the secrecy of this evil religion proves that all these things, or practically all, are true.”

A COMMONLY FOUND DEBATE ERROR INVOLVING THESE TWO FALLACIES

An oft repeated error in debate is when a theist makes the claim that an atheist citing a lack of evidence as proof that an event did not occur as an “argument from silence.” The theist typically confounds this blunder by following up with an argument from ignorance! See this nice example:

First, here is an example of a logical statement, from Earl Doherty’s case for a non-historical Jesus. It uses the logical point that a lack of evidence implies a lack of existence. His logical point is followed by a confused theist claiming it is an argument from silence – wrong and then committing his own logical fallacy – an argument from ignorance.

Before Ignatius, not a single reference to Pontius Pilate, Jesus’ executioner, is to be found. Ignatius is also the first to mention Mary; Joseph, Jesus’ father, nowhere appears. The earliest reference to Jesus as any kind of a teacher comes in 1 Clement, just before Ignatius, who himself seems curiously unaware of any of Jesus’ teachings. To find the first indication of Jesus as a miracle worker, we must move beyond Ignatius to the Epistle of Barnabas. Other notable elements of the Gospel story are equally hard to find. This strange silence on the Gospel Jesus which pervades almost a century of Christian correspondence cries out for explanation. It cannot be dismissed as some inconsequential quirk, or by the blithe observation made by New Testament scholarship that early Christian writers “show no interest” in the earthly life of Jesus. Something is going on here.

This is a logical point – that a lack of evidence points to the non existence of some phenomena. He doesn’t overdo the claim – and state that a lack of evidence makes some thing impossible, so no logical fallacy occurs. The theist replies:

Now of course we recognize this as an argument from silence (WRONG), and Doherty admits as much; but he insists that the “silence” is so pervasive, and so far-reaching, that something must indeed be going on here beyond what NT scholars are/have been able to recognize. But is this truly the case?

Now of course “they” actually realize incorrectly, and I doubt Doherty “admits as much” unless he too never took logic 101. Doherty’s argument as stated above is not an argument from silence. The logical fallacy here is an argument from ignorance, on the part of the theist in this argument, who continues on to argue that the lack of evidence actually points to some proof that jesus did exist! To maintain that a lack of evidence most likely implies non existence is logical. To claim that this lack of evidence makes the phenomena more likely is illogical. The fallacy of arguing from ignorance. To claim that citing a lack of evidence points to lack of existence is a logical fallacy is STUPIDITY. You can check out this debate yourself.

FALLACY OF REDEFINITION OR The “No True Scotsman…” fallacy Suppose I assert that no Scotsman likes to play checkers. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes to play checkers. I then say “Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman likes to play checkers.

This is an example of an ad hoc change being used to shore up an assertion, combined with an attempt to shift the meaning of the words used original assertion; as well as “counting the hits and forgetting the misses” -you might call it a combination of fallacies. Whatever you call it, its a nasty attempt to alter reality to suit one’s needs.

The fallacy of redefinition is a key component of the argument style of Chris “Mad Dog” Russo, who can be heard on WFAN radio. A good example can be heard nearly every day. The most recent example was his challenge for fans to find “One small market baseball team that is competitive.” Seeing that small market Arizona won the world series last year, and that other small market teams such as Atlanta and San Diego have appeared in the world series within the last four years, fans found this challenge rather easy to meet. They phoned in and listed these cities, as well as other cites such as Seattle and Oakland that appeared in the playoffs only last year. Obviously, any logical person, so thoroughly refuted, would be compelled to immediately withdraw the ludicrous claim. However, Russo responded by stating that each of those teams had big budgets and therefore they were not small market teams. In other words, Russo re-defined the term “small market” from meaning “a smaller city with a smaller population” (which is what it really means) to mean “a team with a smaller budget.” But any sensible person realizes that “small market” indicates nothing more or less than a small market – regardless of what the budget of the team is.

Radio hosts tend to use the logical fallacy of redefinition often, since it allows their arguments to become moving targets, safe from logical rebuttals. With their argument safe from logical debunking, they are free to continue to spout pure idiocy, unchecked. Even more perversely, they can claim that their argument has never been “refuted”. The best way to catch such a rhetorician is to insist that he define his terms (he won’t) and stick to this one particular issue. (he’ll sidestep to some other issue immediately) However, if you can pin him down, he will back off – until the next caller.

AD HOC – I’m thinking of putting this in the “Suspect Debate Tactics” section. The Ad Hoc fallacy occurs when we give an after-the-fact explanation to shore up an argument that has been negated by some new evidence and this explanation is made without restoring to an consistent policy, but solely because this explanation rescues the theory!

The two most common examples are cries of “translation error” and “out of context.”

The problem with the cry of “translation error” is that to be consistent, one would need to check the entire document for translation errors, especially points that are not under criticism.

The problem with “out of context” is that “context” is often a subjective claim to begin with. Unless a statement is completely in discord with the immediate passages preceing or anteceding the statement, going back for “further context” is questionable at best.

Often this ad hoc explanation is nothing more than a special plead, dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation:
“I was healed from cancer.”
“Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer.”
“So, will He heal others who have cancer?”
“Er… The ways of God are mysterious.”
The logical response would be “No… and that doesn’t make sense, does it?”

See “Weak analogy”.

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE – See also “small sample bias” One of the simplest and widely seen fallacies is the belief that one can prove a point based solely on anecdotal evidence. For example: “There’s abundant proof that God exists and is still performing miracles today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured.”

It’s quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don’t actually prove anything to anyone. Your friend may say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven’t had the same experience will require more than your friend’s anecdotal evidence to convince them.

Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends; stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years.

SALIENCY – Saliency is a fallacy in which a very dramatic event is taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the mere fact that an event is particularly vivid or dramatic does not make the event more likely to occur, especially in the face of significant statistical evidence.

People often accept this sort of “reasoning” because particularly vivid or dramatic cases tend to make a very strong impression on the human mind. For example, if a person survives a particularly awful plane crash, he might be inclined to believe that air travel is more dangerous than other forms of travel. After all, explosions and people dying around him will have a more significant impact on his mind than will the rather dull statistics that a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in a plane crash.

WEAK ANALOGY. Also called the OVEREXTENDED FALLACY. A weak analogy occurs whenver two entities are considered comparable because of a superficial similiarity. A typical analogy is usually drawn in the following manner:

Entity 1 is held to possess the attributes of A and B and C, Entity 2 is maintained to possess the attributes of A and B. Therefore, Entity 2 probably has attribute C.

However, any analogy made without a strong systematic, causal connection between possession of the attributes A and B AND possession of attribute C commits the fallacy of Weak analogy. An example may better clarify:

1) Hitler was a man who spoke German, wore a goofy mustache, and had an irrational hatred of Jews.
2) Einstein spoke German and had a goofy mustache – it follows that he had an irrational hatred of Jews.

This is a weak analogy because no causal connection can be drawn between speaking German and hating Jews (although BEING German and hating Jews might… no… of course not.) Not to sound like a broken record, but to hear fine examples of this, tune into Rush, between rehab visits…

The key element that a keen debater will learn from this entry is that the ‘weak’ or ‘overextended’ fallacy is often one drawn between an entity you support and an entity that shares superficial characteristics with your entity, plus one with clealry ‘odious elements’ that are not essential to the nature of the entity that you support or defend. For this reason, I call the overextended analogy the ‘Hitler argument’, for Hitler is the most popular historical felon used in the overextended analogy. Here is an example: Arguer: ‘I believe in a woman’s right to choose, therefore I support abortion.’ Opponent: ‘Gee, isn’t that how Hitler would handle unwanted pregnancies?’ Whether or not Hitler would handle the situation in a similar manner is not essential to this argument – after all, Hilter was also | nice to dogs, so according to this logic, one would have to be mean to dogs to avoid being ‘Hitlerian’. (By the way, just to show how off the mark this argument is, Hitler was AGAINST abortion.)

FALSE ANALOGY In an analogy, we explain or define a phenomenon by making a comparison of this unknown entity to a known entity. An analogy is somewhat like a generalization in that it uses a specific, well known example, as its basis. However, whereas the generalization draws a conclusion about the whole class of objects from which the example is drawn, the analogy draws its conclusion about another specific example. The analogy makes the assumption, ‘This unknown example is like that known example’. Now, the test of an analogy is this:

Is the unknown example like the known example in the -essential- areas being compared?

As long as the similarities lie in the | areas about which the claim is made, argument by analogy constitutes proof. If the analogy draws its comparisons in an area not relevant to the claim, the argument will be faulty. Therefore, this fallacy occurs when a comparison between one phenomena and another is made based on a resemblence so superficial that the analogy clearly is nonsensical – i.e. there is no legitimate reason to claim that the two entities are similar. No logical evidence for the connection is made. Here is an example: Why should we sentimentalize over a few hundred thousand Native Americans who were ruined when our great civilization was being built? It may be that they suffered injustices, but, after all, you | can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. In order to make an omelet, one is required to crack open the eggs. In order to build a nation, it is not required that one rape and slaughter its native inhabitants.

Causal Fallacies

Diretionality error
Third variable error
False cause fallacies – Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (RITUALISTIC THINKING)
False Cause Fallices – Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
False Cause Fallices – non causa pro causa
False cause fallacies – Transductive reasoning
False cause fallacies – slippery slope
Causal Fallacies – Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Causal Fallacies – Insignificance
Causal Fallacies – complex cause
Causal Fallacies – the regressive fallacy
Causal Fallacies – fallacy of the predetermined outcome

Note: I discuss causal fallacies in more detail on my Scientific Method page.

Causal fallacies occur because of scientific ignorance. The most common error is known as the ‘correlation/causation error’ – the assumption that two correlated phenomena have a causal relationship. This fallacy occurs when we assume that because two things have either a positive relationship (the more it rains, the more your knee itches) or a negative relationship (The more you watch tv, the less you exercise) that this means that one thing is the CAUSE of the other. This is not necessarily true, for while correlation is a necessary condition for causality, it is not a sufficient reason for a causality. There are are two types of correlational/causational errors. They follow below: DIRECTIONALITY ERROR The direction between cause and effect is reversed. Saying that carrying your umbrella with you makes it more likely to rain is an example. THIRD VARIABLE ERROR – This occurs when one takes correlational data and assumes a causal relationship. One thing is held to to cause another, when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause.

See also the section on “necessary and sufficient” causes.

FALLACY OF FALSE CAUSE (RITUALISTIC THINKING) POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC -This fallacy occurs when events are seen to be causally connected when in fact no such causal connection has been established. Basically one event is asserted to be the cause of a later event simply by virtue of having happened earlier. In scientific research, this is referred to as the dreaded CORRELATION /CAUSALITY error! See Correlational Law and causational law in my dictionary or simply scroll down to the causational fallacies below.
Example: Men who read pornography become spousal abusers.
Or Here is one from the Pope, no less!
“I asked Father Pio to pray for a cancer patient. 11 days later, he had a spontaneous recovering. Therefore Father Pio worked a miracle!”

Warning catchphrase to look for: In general, consider the scientific education of the arguer. Do they fail to present empirical evidence? Not refer to charts/data? Do they seem to freely use the term “This proves I am right”? (A NO NO for scientific thinkers.) If so, the speaker may not understand the limits of correlational evidence.

CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC This is very similar to the above cause, here the sole difference is that the two events (cause and effect) happen simultaneously.

NON CAUSA PRO CAUSAThis fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The sole difference of importance is that here one putative cause is chosen as “the cause” when a myriad of possible causes exist. Example:

“Literacy rates have steadily declined since the advent of television. Clearly television viewing impedes learning.”

Here, this may be a valid point. However, the fallacy is to assume that television is the sole cause, or even the most important cause. Again, the correlation/causality error may take place here, leadin go the possibility of the ‘directionality’ error – i.e. that some other factor reduce literacy rates, which led people to watch more tv! Or it may be that there is the third variable problem at work – some other factor may have led to a reduction in literacy and an increase in television viewing. The fallacy of the false cause is referred to as non causa pro causa (not the cause for the cause) in situations outside of temporal succession, such as in the following fallacy.

See also the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy”

TRANSDUCTIVE REASONING The two fallacies above are related in that they are both examples of transductive reasoning. Transductive reasoning is how pre-schoolers’ reason. Because preoperational children (children typically under the age of 8 who have not yet reached Piaget’s concrete operations stage, see my entry on Piaget) are not yet logical thinkers, their explanations are often based on collections of disconected facts and contradictions. This means that young children tend not to reason from general laws to specific instances (deduction) or from evidence to general conclusions (induction) but from a specific events to other specific event (Transductive reasoning). Piaget called this transductive reasoning. Because their worldviews are not yet internally consistent, pre-schoolers tend to see causal connections between events simply because of their connections in contiguity. (Source: Development Through the Lifespan, Laura Berk, 1999)

What this means is that they form opinions on causal connections non logically. Here is a good example from the above cited text:

Mother: Why does it get dark at night?
Child: Because that’s when we go to bed! Compare this answer from a four year old to the pope’s statements from the false cause entry above:

Reporter: Why did the cancer disapear?
Pope: Because father Pio prayed!

The transductive reasoning of a four year old is at work in both statements. In the child, it’s cute. In the adult figurehead representing spiritual and intellectual leadership for a billion people, it’s nearly beyond frightening. SLIPPERY SLOPE Another popularly known fallacy, this is actually an offshoot of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when an arguer claims one event must lead to a successive chain of less desirable consequences -without offering any other proof.
Example: “If we vote for Clinton, a known pot smoker, soon the whole Whitehouse will be filled with drug addicts.”

NECESSARY VS SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FALLACY A necessary condition is a condition that must be present to bring about some effect. A sufficient condition possesses, as one of its attributes, the necessary condition, along with other attributes that are not necessary to bring about the effect. The fallacy occurs when we mistakenly assume that the the secondary attributes of the sufficient condition are somehow necessary conditions.

Example: let’s imagine that the desired effect we want is to shatter a window. We realize that force that exceeds the tensile strength of the window is a necessary condition for breaking the window. A hammer thrown at 30 mph. at the window is a sufficient condition for breaking a window. The fallacy occurs when we attempt to argue that is it necessary to possess something metal to break a window, or even something material to break a window.

INSIGNIFICANCE: One thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect. You’ll often see this fallacious claim in conjunction with therapies and medicines – hell, with just about any consumer product. Recall the old commercial phrase “part of a complete breakfast!” – (sure, so is the table cloth) that captures the concept quite well.

ERROR OF THE OVERDETERMINED/COMPLEX CAUSE: The cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect. This is related to the next fallacy…

THE REGRESSIVE FALLACY The regressive fallacy occurs when one fails to take into account that any measured phenomena will inevitably fluctuate for various reasons, and instead immediately claims that some change over time MUST be be due to the cause of some purported independent variable. The e tendency for any measurable variable to move toward the average expected measure for that variable and away from extremes was called “regression” by Sir Francis Galton – i.e. regression toward the mean.

Nearly anything you measure will fluctuate over time – your mood, your physical well being, the stock market, sports teams performances. The regressive fallacy is one key argument against the legitimacy of the purported PLACEBO effect. Simply put, there may be no real placebo effect at all… what is really occuring in medical research is that positive reponses after placebo may be measuring regressive factors – such as natural healing over time.

See also the “false cause” error and “transductive reasoning”.

FALLACY OF THE PREDETERMINED OUTCOME

This is a current favorite of mine, and I learned it from Michael Kay, a talented and intelligent sports announcer for the New York Yankees.

Kay often runs into fans who say something akin to: “If only player x had gotten on base, then player y’s home run right after x’s at bat would have won the game.”

Kay counters that we cannot assume player y would have hit the homerun in this hypothetical situation, because we have changed what led up to y’s homerun so that all future outcomes are now in doubt – i.e. the playing field is literally changed. For specific examples, Kay would point out that after walking player x, the opposing pitcher might have been substituted, or that player y may have become more anxious knowing that the game was now on the line and struck out. In fact, aliens from outer space, who had placed wagers on the Yankee’s opponents, may have chosen that instant to attack and annihilate Yankee stadium. There is simply no way to know for certain what would happen next. Whatever the specifics, we can never assume that an outcome would be exactly the same as it is now, if we were to hypothetically go back and change variables that led up to the outcome. The flaw in the assumption here is that the arguer is assuming that he can keep whatever outcomes that please him, while denying those that do not, when in fact all variables in outcomes are connected and can never be separated.

SEMANTIC FALLACIES

This category is up of problems concerning purposeful vagueness. They include: Vagueness, Equivocation/Semantic fallacy, Euphemisms, Amphiboly, Accent and the fallacies of analogy – Composition and Division and several others. “>

Semantic fallacies – Vagueness
Semantic fallacies – equivocation
Semantic fallacies – euphemism
Semantic fallacies – amphiboly
Semantic fallacies – accent
grammatical fallacies – Fallacy of composition
grammatical fallacies – Fallacy of division
gramamtical fallacies – texas sharpshooter fallacy

This category is up of problems concerning purposeful vagueness. They include: Vagueness, Equivocation/Semantic fallacy, Euphemisms, Amphiboly, Accent and the fallacies of analogy – Composition and Division and several others.

FALLACY OF VAGUENESS Also known as weasel words. This fallacy occurs when premises or conclusions contain terms that are so fuzzy as to be practically meaningless. They don’t mean anything. If you wear the ancient asian power ring, it will increase your Chi, your life force, and lead to maximized health. Just what the hell is Chi, or life force, or ‘maximixed health’, for that matter?

DEFINITIONAL (SEMANTIC) FALLACY – EQUIVOCATION - This is very closely related to the fallacy above. The purposeful or erroneous transposition of meaning when the same word is used in two premises (or a premise and a conclusion), that is actually used in two different senses. This is also known as ‘Weasel Words’ – the use of which allow unscrupulous arguers to change their meaning after the fact. ‘I didn’t mean that, I meant this…’

A simple example: ‘Banks have money. Rivers have banks. Therefore, whoever owns a river has a lot of money’ Perhaps a person who could own a river would have a lot of money, but this point is not proven here. The error is apparent – it hinges on the claim that the word ‘bank’ has the same meaning in each premise. A more complex form, from an argument posed by the theist, J. P. Moreland from the book ‘Does God Exist’: ‘Information must ultimately derive from an intelligent source. DNA possesses information – therefore, DNA shows design by an intelligent force- this force must be God’. Leaving aside the Kierkegaardian leap made from the premise to the conclusion, which commits the fallacy of missing the point (Why does it HAVE to be God? How about Allah? Zeus? Aliens from another dimension? The sole reason for choosing God seems to be that the arguer is a christian.) the error here is that the word ‘information’, when used in explaining the code in DNA, is used in a second sense – as a metaphor. The word ‘blueprint’ could have been used, yet no one would seriously suggest that there are real, miniature blueprints in DNA. If they did, perhaps then they could claim the existence of very tiny draftsmen. Equivocation happens purposely as well:

That all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. – William Jefferson Clinton

Warning Catchphrase to look for: Examine analogies and metaphors carefully, especially when an analogy differs greatly from the phenomena discussed. (I.E. God is like a flower…) Ask for precising or operational definitions of words, even simple words, when they are used in argument form. Few words are univocal – with just one meaning.

EUPHEMISM This fallacy is the opposite of equivocation, it involves the use of a DIFFERENT word for a word we wish to avoid using, yet still containing the SAME meaning that we need to transmit. This is done to purposely obscure or confuse the reader to the true motives of the arguer, to make the reader or listener believe one desires to commit to one action when one really is favoring the opposite, or merely avoid making embarrassing admissions outright. In some cases the motivation is merely to aesthetically please – such as calling a toilet the ‘necessarium’ in front of the hoity-toity. The worst misuses of euphemisms may occur to people unaware that they are in fact using it – self delusion.

A good example would be those who deny evolution by saying that the changes we see in life forms are only ‘breeding’. However, breeding would not be possible if life forms could not evolve or change. The fear of using or accepting the word ‘evolution’ is not based on any logical examination, but a fear of the religious ramifications of evolution.

Here is an infamous example of a euphemism being used to avoid making an embarrassing admission:

It is no coincidence that I have chosen to use a politician as an example of euphemisms, for they are the worst offenders of this brand of fallacy – watch for how our government works. (I.e. – The Korean Conflict instead of War). For example, consider:

Republicans create new policies – Clinton Flip Flops.
Clinton was a pothead – George W. Bush had a ’substance abuse problem’.
Clinton has affairs – Henry Hide had a youthful indiscretion (in his 40s). Clinton raises taxes – Reagan ‘enhanced government revenues’.

Lastly, consider the | following three step transitions from good connotation to bad connotation, while all the words used have the same denotation. This method best explains the range of possible word choice when speaking about the very same phenomena:

< I am firm; you are obstinate; he is a pigheaded fool.
I have reconsidered it; you have changed your mind; he is going back on his word.
I failed to comply with the law; you committed a crime; he is a felonious social deviant.

Warning Catchphrase to look for: The solution to uncovering this fallacy is simple in theory, but difficult in practice – as a logician you must ask the meaning of terms when you are unsure of them. If some military figure tells you that there will be a | ‘predawn vertical insertion’ find out what the crap this means. (It means armed troops are going to parachute into some hostile country, and start killing poor bastards – but they don’t want to tell you it that way…) Don’t just pretend to be smart, ask and BE smart. If the military figure reveals that there has been some ‘friendly collateral damage’, be honest with yourself and say to him ‘what the hell is friendly damage, buddy?!’ You’ll find out that it means that innocent bystanders were killed during a battle or a bombing mission. Again, the military guy ain’t too pleased to tell you this. Asking someone what they mean takes on the risk of ‘looking dumb’ but remember, that is the very thought process being taken | advantage of in a euphemism! When Reagan looked America in the eye and spoke of revenue enhancements, he knew the average Republican voter had no idea what he meant, and that none of them would risk admitting ignorance to find out. That’s how people trick you – by using your own hang-ups against you! Note: The opposite of Euphemisim is ‘dysphemism’, which is the act of replacing a favorable term with a nasty, unfavorable term.

AMPHIBOLY. When an argument depends upon a statement (Not just a word or phrase) that is ambiguous due to a grammatical error. This can occur from poor punctuation or a dangling participle.

ACCENT Accent is a form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this case, the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are emphasized. For example: ‘We should NOT SPEAK ILL of our friends’ and ‘We should not speak ill of our FRIENDS’ Be particularly wary of this fallacy on the internet, where it’s easy to misread the emphasis of what’s written.

FALLACY OF COMPOSITION. The fallacy of composition occurs when we erroneously transpose of a characteristic of a part of a system, or a person, to be characteristic of the whole, or the whole personality. It’s similar to the fallacy of small sample bias/hasty generalization. Example: Oxygen and Hydrogen are both gases, it follows that H2O is also a gas’ Another example: Al Gore agrees with the Unibomber on several environmental issues. It follows that Gore is just as reckless, uncaring and irresponsible as the unibomber. The philosophical argument known as the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ is an argument that relies on the composition fallacy. This is a philosophical argument that points out that what is good for individuals in society might have terrible ramifications for all members of said society if all members were to follow the same behavior – i..e one polluter benefits, many polluters suffer.

GRAMMATICAL FALLACY OF DIVISION The reverse of the composition fallacy – when a characteristic of the whole is erroneously transferred to one or more of its parts. Example: Water is a liquid, it follows that oxygen and hydrogen must also be liquids’ A special case of the fallacy of division is the the clustering illusion or the Texas-sharpshooter fallacy. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is the name epidemiologists give to the clustering illusion – the clustering illusion is the intuition that random events which occur in clusters are not really random events, i.e, finding a statistically unusual number of cancers in a given neighborhood–such as six or seven times greater than the average.

When this rate is re-connected to the overall population, we see that such a high localized rate is not all rare or even unexpected. Much depends on where you draw the boundaries of the neighborhood. The illusion is due to selective attention based on a false assumption: that a given rate for a phenomenon will be perfectly uniform across all members of that group. The term refers to the story of the Texas sharpshooter who shoots holes in the side of a barn and then draws a bull’s-eye around the bullet holes: as long as the sharpshooter gets to pick where the target is afterwards, he will always remain a sharp shooter!

SUSPECT DEBATE TACTICS

I’ve always wanted to add in a section on dirty debate tactics. These are not ‘fallacies’ so much as they are either ignorant flaws or purposeful attempts to twist reality in order to convince another of your position. I will start out by looking more closely at rhetoric techniques, and then I will examine a few debate styles that are more than just a little bit suspect… “>

FALLACY OF IMPERATIVES This rhetorical tactic occurs whenever we state terms in absolutes where an absolute does not exist, such as claiming that we must do something, (logical necessity) or that we should do something (a moral necessity). Whenever an arguer speaks in absolute shoulds and musts, (without conditionals) he is a rhetorician, not a logician. In psychological terms, this is known as Karen Horney’s “tyranny of the shoulds” or Albert Ellis’ “shoulding yourself” and “mustifications”.

Consider the following rhetorical plea: We must save the rainforests!

This statement is pure rhetoric, because it makes a claim that saving the rainforest is a logical necessity. If the statement is reworded to read: We should save the rainforest! it again makes the error of false imperatives, this time on a moral basis.

In order to make these into logical statements, the use of a should, or a must, MUST include a conditional statement: We should save the rainforest, or we may perish from this earth! (Note that the inclusion of the word “may” makes this a logical and possible truth.) “We should save our forests, or face facts that we environmentally uncaring!” Again, this presents the original statement in logical terms.

FALLACY OF QUESTION-BEGGING EPITHETS This fallacy occurs when slanted language is used to reaffirm what we wish to prove but have not proven yet. It is a form of rhetoric. See my rhetoric section for more.

* No right-thinking American could support this measure, a cunning plot hatched in back rooms by corrupt politicians.
* How can you believe the statistical analysis provided by corrupted researchers living off tobacco industry grants?

Be careful. Every negatively phrased question is not the fallacy of question beggin epithets. For example, one could say “No competent medical doctor practices trepaning (cutting open heads to release evil spirts).” The statement is valid as long as the practice in question would violate known precepts of one’s profession. CATASTROPHIZING Also known in cognitive therapy as “fortune telling.” This occurs when you predict the future negatively without considering other, more likely outcomes. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of this. Conservatives ask us to spend billions to save us from immanent doom from the Russians. Liberals demand attention and money must be given to environmental concerns, or the world will perish.

INCONSISTENCY This is another example of poor debate style. It occurs when one uses one system or argument in one case, and then denies it or fails to apply it, in another case. It can occur either in self denigrating or self deferential manner. Carl Sagan’s example from Candle In The Dark: Our government prudently plans for the worst of which an adversary is potentially capable, but thriftily ignores scientific projections on environmental dangers as “unproven.” In psychology, the self denigrating manner of inconsistency is known as “disqualifying the positive” or the type of negative self appraisal that occurs during depression wherein a person ignores their good features and achievements and dwells upon the bad.

This fallacy can also be referred to as the EVERYONE BUT ME PHENOMENA when speakers specifically use a method that they find to be flawed only when it is used by another. The implied presumption is that EVERYBODY BUT ME is wrong if this argument is used. It is the narcissistic and irrational mindset where a thinker, believer in, or supporter of, some system of thought who accepts the invalidity of his justifications or proofs only when OTHERS use it in the service of defending beliefs in discord with the believer/thinker.

Certainly many examples exist in the secular world, but I will choose to pick on religion yet again. A fine example occurs in the debate between Christians and Mormons. Christians deny the contentions that an Angel named Maroni visited Joseph Smith and gave him golden plates containing new scripture. However, this contention differs not a whit from biblical proofs of Christianity that also depend on purported angelic visitation.

What to look for There are at least 2 logical deductions possible when inconsistency occurs:
1) Angelic evidence is too easy to fake, therefore both religions are unproven commodities or 2) Unfortunately both contentions are on equal footing, and Christianity must find other ways to prove Christianity’s truth. (The natural desire to point to a greater preponderance of angelic visitation in Christianity is pointless if the very phenomenon itself is under fire as a questionable proof. See the Preponderance of Bullshit/Garbage fallacy.)

Some fine thinkers would recognize the reality of Angelic proofs and would choose option 1 – ending the dilemma right there. Other equally gifted thinkers would vote for choice number 2, and seek other proofs for their prospective religion. The problem is that many others would simply fall prey to the “everybody but me is crazy” phenomena – and hold that others who use the same arguments are wrong while they somehow are still correct – because they are somehow better or different – i.e. rational.

A therapist and a reporter are talking and the therapist is asked: Have you ever had two Napoleon complex patients at once at your clinic? Yes, he responds. Really? What happens when the meet? Oh, that’s easy – they immediately realize the truth – the other guys is nuts.

MISSING THE POINT fallacy or NON SEQUITUR – Ignoratio elenchiA non sequitur is any argument that has a conclusion that in no way logically follows from the premise. At best, it can be undestood to go well beyond the justification set up in the premises. However, some come across as true non sequiturs, and can seem baffling to logicians, because the fallacy behind them is so crude that it is outside of our conscious experience.

Warning catchphrase When an argument that seems to lead to one conclusion suddenly veers off in an entirely different direction, you have a non sequitur. Often this conclusion goes far, far beyond the evidence the arguer has presented. When I pray, a feeling of quietness and calm overtakes me. Don’t tell me God doesn’t exist!

The calmness that might overtake a person during quiet prayer in no way proves the existence of god. Such meditative states bring equal feelings of peace to Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and other non christians and even non believers of god.

RED HERRING A red herring occurs when your opponent adds in information that is connected in some way to the current discussion, but in no way has any bearing on the argument at hand. A good example would be an argument I entered into recently:

Opponent: Where do you think Christianity shows up in Folwer’s famous hierarchy of faiths?
Myself: Very low, I am afraid. Christianity, with all its tenets, its dogma, would appear, ipso facto, at his conventional stage. Stage 3 of the 7.
Opponent: Aha! But Folwer himself is Christian!
Myself: Yes… but this has no bearing on the matter! The only way it could is if you are insinuating that Folwer, because of his status as a Christian, would purposely shape his theory of faiths to ensure Christianity made the top of the list. But if this happened, then you would still be refuted, because you would be admitting the theory was biased! Therefore, the fact Folwer was a Christian has no bearing here whatsoever! Red herrings can be used purposefully to draw away attention from the point of the argument. I’ve seen tons of good examples on Brooks’s Bogus Beyond Belief website where christian apologists insist that Brooks (the website author) stop trying to debate the logical contradictions he finds in the bible, and instead devote his energy to studying greek or latin versions of the bible to uncover the “true meanings”.

Just an aside here – but if apologists need to spend so much time going back to older biblical sources (and not of course, original sources, which don’t exist), just what kind of job did the biblical translaters do? And if these amateur apologists are so much better at transcribing the older sources, why aren’t they writing newer and more correct versions of the bible?

BLACK HOLING Black ‘holing” refers to the endless void of a black hole in space, and it occurs in a debate when an opponent attempts to stall all discourse by continually demanding that you justify each and every future attempt to justify your position. For example, your opponent replies to the claim “psychology states that X is true” by demanding that you define “psychology”. When you reply, he then demands that you define the terms used to define ‘psychology’, and so on, ad infinitum.

We can rightly hold that our opponent is black holing us when our level of justification reaches claims that even our opponent holds to… For example, if the person defined psychology as “the study of human behavior, thought and emotion” and his opponent stated “define thought” he would be blackholing his opponent, if he already agreed as to what the meaning of the word ‘thought” entailed.

STRAW MAN FALLACY In the straw man fallacy, an arguer oversimplifies, or purposely distorts an opponent’s argument (sets up the straw man), in order that he may attack it more easily (knock it down), and then claims that the opponent’s position has been refuted. To see the straw man fallacy in use, listen to Rush Limbaugh discuss the concept of liberalism.

The opposite of the Straw Man fallacy is the IRON MAN FALLACY, when an arguer purposely (and deceptively) makes his argument out to be much stronger than he himself knows it to be. To see the iron man fallacy in use, listen to Rush Limbaugh disucss the concept of conservatism.

Additional point: An intriguing side note is that an opponent using the straw man fallacy is tipping you off that he is actually afraid to openly debate your real position, preferring instead to attack a much weaker version of your position. The same is true when he commits the iron man fallacy – he is tacitly conceding that his real position is weak.

PREPONDERANCE OF GARBAGE DEFENSE Any argument that offers up numerous arguments or bits of evidence, that if taken one by one, or case by case, would be easily refuted is defense through a preponderence of garbage. The feeling is that the sheer number of arguments proves the case even if each single bit of evidence itself is weak. Sometimes the “coincidence” of the sheer number of cases itself is held to be proof so this is also referred to as a CONSENSUS OF INDEPENDENTLY ARRIVED AT CONCLUSIONS.

A good example would be evidence for UFOs. No UFO case has ever satisfactorily shown evidence of UFOs being of alien visitation. However, the consensus is that the overwhelming pile of weak evidence illustrates that they do exist, since what else would best describe this consistent phenomena?

The truth of course that this defense is specious. The sheer number of cases itself does nothing to verify any phenomena, just as the sheer weight or number of pages in one book over another does not indicate the initial book’s superiority.

I was a member of the U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board committee that investigated the Air Force’s UFO study – called “Project Blue Book”… They had state-of-the-art technology in file retrieval. You asked about a given UFO incident and, somewhat like sweaters and suits at the dry cleaners, impressive reams of files made their way past you, until the engine stopped when the file you wanted arrived before you. But what was in those files wasn’t worth much.
- Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World, pg 82.- On how impressive amounts of useless evidence can gain the appearance of credible information. What to look for: If in any important debate, your opponent insists on numerating countless facts, yet never bothers to delve into any one fact deeply, you may be dealing with a garbage dealer – one who is hoping that sheer weight of citations will intimidate you. A good example would be amateur theologians who point to hundreds of proven biblical “prophecies” without stopping to examine the fact that some of them really weren’t prophecies in the first place, and the rest cannot be shown to have actually prophesized anything. In fact, its quite possible that these debators not even aware that the number quoted is sheer nonsense. They’ve just been won over by the “number.” Other examples are more insidiuos: people such as creationist Kent Hovind, who’s “debating style” consists solely of systematically spewing out refuted idea after refuted idea, but with such speed that the presentation gives the illusion to some that, “well, there must be something in all of that…”

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

This the yet another fallacy that talk show conservatives and theists toss around without knowing what it means. “Intellectual dishonesty’ is a form of plagiarism, which is defined as the use of ideas and phrases in the writings of others as one’s own without crediting the original author.

In laymen’s parlance, intellectual dishonesty is often defined as the presentation of an argument in support or defense of something that one does not actually support or believe in.

SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE Closely related to intellectual dishonesty, supressed evidence is offering only the positive (or negative) attributes of an argument, depending on the needs of the arguer. Important factors relevant to the conclusion are avoided because they present problems for the arguer. This could possibly be committed out of ignorance, but is much more likely done by unscrupulous arguers who seek to take advantage of an opponent’s naiveté. You should buy this used car, because it has new tires, a rebuilt engine, and has no rust. (It also has a bad clutch, an oil leak…) In cases where one suspects it is an honest mistake, the fallacy of suppressed memory is more gently referred to as SELECTIVE MEMORY.

DISADVANTAGEOUS COMPARISON The disadvantagoues comparison error occurs whenever someone accidently, or purposely seeks to prove a point by comparing the most favorable characterisitics of a phenomena to the least favorable characteristics of a competing phenomena, while ignoring the negatives of the first and the positives of the latter. This allows for a distorted view that takes the debaters away from the truth.

The most commonly seen version of this error is known as “the historical disadvantageous comparison error” and it typically occurs out of nostalgia – i.e. the cognitive phenomena that tends to romantize our past because of our youthful inability to recoginize the true complexity of our childhood. Example:

Debator 1: Clearly the 1950s were a more idelyic times… look at how peaceful our schools were.
Debator 2: Oh really? Why not ask a black person how they feel about that. You know, those ‘other’ students who were trying to get in the schools, but kept being knocked over by firehoses?

POSTDICTION This fallacy occurs when one creates a “prediction” after the fact. This is typically done through the use of a ambiguously worded statement that is retro-fitted to be a “prediction”. Next, the facts pertaining to the supposedly predicted event are called upon. Those that can be made to fit the “prediction” are used, and those that do not fit are discarded. The process is subject to numerous biases, such as ‘hindsight bias” which makes events appear more “predictable” than they actually are. Predictions are only of value if they are 1) falsifiable and 2) capable of actually predicting the event!

INSERTIONISM This fallacy, or more correctly, decietful debate tactic, occurs when there is an unwarranted and unsubstantiated insertion of words or new meanings into a statement or argument. In the christian apologetic work, An Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties Gleason Archer argues against the existence of biblical contradictions. In one case, he argues against these contradictions:

John 6:46 “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.” 1John 4:12 “No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.”

Versus

Gen. 32:30 “And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”

Exod. 33:11 “And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.”

Well, that seems a clear contradiction, right? I mean the last quote even stresses that god appeared ‘as a man speaks to his friend.’ Well, nothing is so clear that an apologist cannot muddy it up. In his argument, Archer claims that “God showed His face through an angel (as at the interview with Moses at the burning bush ( Ex. 3:2-6), or else through his glory cloud,…”

Yet, the Bible clearly states that Moses (Ex. 33:11) and Jacob (Gen.32:30) saw God face to face, not “through an angel” or “through His glory cloud.” Archer is guilty of insertionism–the unwarranted and unsubstantiated insertion of words into a Biblical verse to escape contradictions or a mistake.

Remember this: In an argument, the evidence is sancrosanct. We can’t ever play around with the evidence itself. We can use evidence, cite it, compile it in statistics, but once you go rewriting the evidence itself to suit your needs, you’ve tainted the entire process. Once you start adding things to the evidence itself, you’ve basically broken the basic rule of argument – you’re being dishonest. (***) That Archer rewrites god in order to settle a “biblical difficulty” makes this an especially galling and egregious violation of this fallacy.

By the way, even the title of the book: An Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties commits a fallacy. The use of the word “difficulties” is unwarranted, because this debate is about biblical contradictions, not “difficulties.” So, Archer commits the fallacy of euphimism.

But then again, what other recourse does a christian have in debate anyway?

MISUSE OF STATISTICSThe suspect debate tactic of ‘misusing statistics’ is a complicated subject, requiring an examination of the skills related to the scientific method. Seeing as it is a complex subject, it is clear that many debators misuse statistics out of ignorance (although a debater is always responsible for accidents due to his ignorance).

Misusing statistics out of ignorance.

My favorite example would be a website I found once, which purported to prove that rock stars died, on average, much earlier than other people. He then claimed that this proved that god was punishing rock stars for being evil

On the surface, the argument looked good. It certainly would convince a fundy.

However, a quick perusal of the flaws in this research will help guide us through the varoius modes in which ignoranance of science leads to misuse of statistics.

1) First, without realizing it, this fellow is making a disadvantagous comparison. (See above.) Rock music has only been around since the mid 1950s, whereas people have been living for thousands of years. So to compare the life spans of people performing an art form for only the last 60 years to all other people is unfair.

2) Next, we should pause and consider that the rock stars on his list are all DEAD. So, this means that only dead rocks stars are included on the list. This means that, of course, all rock stars who are still alive, and in their 60’s and 70’s are not included on the list!

3) Next, we have a defintional problem here. Just what is a rock star? The answer seems to be: anyone even remotely connected to rock and roll who has DIED.

4) Next, what sorts of death are included? It appears all deaths, even the possibility of deaths without any ‘evil connotation are included. (death by natural causes, death by illness.)

In short, these stats are nonsense. They are built up through igorance of statistical methodology. Recall this brief point in relation to statistical comparisons: We must always consider all the elements that need to be compared.

In the above example, this person included only 3 of the 4 typical phenomena that must be examined.

1 elements that support my view
2 elements that support my opponents view
3 elements that debunk my view (and don’t support his)
4 elements that debunk my opponents view (and don’t support mine)

Most bad statisticians leave out number 2 and especially 3. In this case, this fellow left out rock stars who are still alive. If he were to include their advanced ages, the ‘discrepancy’ between the lives of rock stars and ordinary people would disapear. put quote here: Lies, damned lies and statistics -Ben Franklin Of course, it is also possible to purposely distort information through statistics. The most common example would be using purposely misleading charts. In making a chart it is necessary to start with a true zero point, if possible. if we do not, we can create a chart that appears to have a great difference between two phenomena when no such difference exists. Here is a nice example. In this chart, it would appear that candiate A has a great lead over candidate b. However, when we make an honest chart, and begin at a true zero point, look what happens: Then, when we replace the ‘error bars’ which every honest and scientific chart must have: We see that not only is there no large difference, there isn’t even a significant difference In fact, statistically we can say that the two candiates have statistically equal support

Insertionism and misuse of statistics are basically one step above the last, and most dishonest of all suspect debate tactics: Lying.

http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html

TIMAEUS

by Plato

360 BC

translated by Benjamin Jowett

New York, C. Scribner’s Sons, [1871]

  PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE: SOCRATES; CRITIAS; TIMAEUS; HERMOCRATES

  Socrates. One, two, three; but where, my dear Timaeus, is the fourth
of those who were yesterday my guests and are to be my entertainers
to-day?

  Timaeus. He has been taken ill, Socrates; for he would not willingly
have been absent from this gathering.

  Soc. Then, if he is not coming, you and the two others must supply
his place.

  Tim. Certainly, and we will do all that we can; having been
handsomely entertained by you yesterday, those of us who remain should
be only too glad to return your hospitality.

  Soc. Do you remember what were the points of which I required you to
speak?

  Tim. We remember some of them, and you will be here to remind us
of anything which we have forgotten: or rather, if we are not
troubling you, will you briefly recapitulate the whole, and then the
particulars will be more firmly fixed in our memories?

  Soc. To be sure I will: the chief theme of my yesterday's
discourse was the State-how constituted and of what citizens
composed it would seem likely to be most perfect.

  Tim. Yes, Socrates; and what you said of it was very much to our
mind.

  Soc. Did we not begin by separating the husbandmen and the
artisans from the class of defenders of the State?

  Tim. Yes.

  Soc. And when we had given to each one that single employment and
particular art which was suited to his nature, we spoke of those who
were intended to be our warriors, and said that they were to be
guardians of the city against attacks from within as well as from
without, and to have no other employment; they were to be merciful
in judging their subjects, of whom they were by nature friends, but
fierce to their enemies, when they came across them in battle.

  Tim. Exactly.

  Soc. We said, if I am not mistaken, that the guardians should be
gifted with a temperament in a high degree both passionate and
philosophical; and that then they would be as they ought to be, gentle
to their friends and fierce with their enemies.

  Tim. Certainly.

  Soc. And what did we say of their education? Were they not to be
trained in gymnastic, and music, and all other sorts of knowledge
which were proper for them?

  Tim. Very true.

  Soc. And being thus trained they were not to consider gold or silver
or anything else to be their own private property; they were to be
like hired troops, receiving pay for keeping guard from those who were
protected by them-the pay was to be no more than would suffice for men
of simple life; and they were to spend in common, and to live together
in the continual practice of virtue, which was to be their sole
pursuit.

  Tim. That was also said.

  Soc. Neither did we forget the women; of whom we declared, that
their natures should be assimilated and brought into harmony with
those of the men, and that common pursuits should be assigned to
them both in time of war and in their ordinary life.

  Tim. That, again, was as you say.

  Soc. And what about the procreation of children? Or rather not the
proposal too singular to be forgotten? for all wives and children were
to be in common, to the intent that no one should ever know his own
child, but they were to imagine that they were all one family; those
who were within a suitable limit of age were to be brothers and
sisters, those who were of an elder generation parents and
grandparents, and those of a younger children and grandchildren.

  Tim. Yes, and the proposal is easy to remember, as you say.

  Soc. And do you also remember how, with a view of securing as far as
we could the best breed, we said that the chief magistrates, male
and female, should contrive secretly, by the use of certain lots, so
to arrange the nuptial meeting, that the bad of either sex and the
good of either sex might pair with their like; and there was to be
no quarrelling on this account, for they would imagine that the
union was a mere accident, and was to be attributed to the lot?

  Tim. I remember.

  Soc. And you remember how we said that the children of the good
parents were to be educated, and the children of the bad secretly
dispersed among the inferior citizens; and while they were all growing
up the rulers were to be on the look-out, and to bring up from below
in their turn those who were worthy, and those among themselves who
were unworthy were to take the places of those who came up?

  Tim. True.

  Soc. Then have I now given you all the heads of our yesterday's
discussion? Or is there anything more, my dear Timaeus, which has been
omitted?

  Tim. Nothing, Socrates; it was just as you have said.

  Soc. I should like, before proceeding further, to tell you how I
feel about the State which we have described. I might compare myself
to a person who, on beholding beautiful animals either created by
the painter's art, or, better still, alive but at rest, is seized with
a desire of seeing them in motion or engaged in some struggle or
conflict to which their forms appear suited; this is my feeling
about the State which we have been describing. There are conflicts
which all cities undergo, and I should like to hear some one tell of
our own city carrying on a struggle against her neighbours, and how
she went out to war in a becoming manner, and when at war showed by
the greatness of her actions and the magnanimity of her words in
dealing with other cities a result worthy of her training and
education. Now I, Critias and Hermocrates, am conscious that I
myself should never be able to celebrate the city and her citizens
in a befitting manner, and I am not surprised at my own incapacity; to
me the wonder is rather that the poets present as well as past are
no better-not that I mean to depreciate them; but every one can see
that they are a tribe of imitators, and will imitate best and most
easily the life in which they have been brought up; while that which
is beyond the range of a man's education he finds hard to carry out in
action, and still harder adequately to represent in language. I am
aware that the Sophists have plenty of brave words and fair
conceits, but I am afraid that being only wanderers from one city to
another, and having never had habitations of their own, they may
fail in their conception of philosophers and statesmen, and may not
know what they do and say in time of war, when they are fighting or
holding parley with their enemies. And thus people of your class are
the only ones remaining who are fitted by nature and education to take
part at once both in politics and philosophy. Here is Timaeus, of
Locris in Italy, a city which has admirable laws, and who is himself
in wealth and rank the equal of any of his fellow-citizens; he has
held the most important and honourable offices in his own state,
and, as I believe, has scaled the heights of all philosophy; and
here is Critias, whom every Athenian knows to be no novice in the
matters of which we are speaking; and as to, Hermocrates, I am assured
by many witnesses that his genius and education qualify him to take
part in any speculation of the kind. And therefore yesterday when I
saw that you wanted me to describe the formation of the State, I
readily assented, being very well aware, that, if you only would, none
were better qualified to carry the discussion further, and that when
you had engaged our city in a suitable war, you of all men living
could best exhibit her playing a fitting part. When I had completed my
task, I in return imposed this other task upon you. You conferred
together and agreed to entertain me to-day, as I had entertained
you, with a feast of discourse. Here am I in festive array, and no man
can be more ready for the promised banquet.

  Her. And we too, Socrates, as Timaeus says, will not be wanting in
enthusiasm; and there is no excuse for not complying with your
request. As soon as we arrived yesterday at the guest-chamber of
Critias, with whom we are staying, or rather on our way thither, we
talked the matter over, and he told us an ancient tradition, which I
wish, Critias, that you would repeat to Socrates, so that he may
help us to judge whether it will satisfy his requirements or not.

  Crit. I will, if Timaeus, who is our other partner, approves.

  Tim. I quite approve.

  Crit. Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is
certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of
the seven sages. He was a relative and a dear friend of my
great-grandfather, Dropides, as he himself says in many passages of
his poems; and he told the story to Critias, my grandfather, who
remembered and repeated it to us. There were of old, he said, great
and marvellous actions of the Athenian city, which have passed into
oblivion through lapse of time and the destruction of mankind, and one
in particular, greater than all the rest. This we will now rehearse.
It will be a fitting monument of our gratitude to you, and a hymn of
praise true and worthy of the goddess, on this her day of festival.

  Soc. Very good. And what is this ancient famous action of the
Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be
not a mere legend, but an actual fact?

  Crit. I will tell an old-world story which I heard from an aged man;
for Critias, at the time of telling it, was as he said, nearly
ninety years of age, and I was about ten. Now the day was that day
of the Apaturia which is called the Registration of Youth, at which,
according to custom, our parents gave prizes for recitations, and
the poems of several poets were recited by us boys, and many of us
sang the poems of Solon, which at that time had not gone out of
fashion. One of our tribe, either because he thought so or to please
Critias, said that in his judgment Solon was not only the wisest of
men, but also the noblest of poets. The old man, as I very well
remember, brightened up at hearing this and said, smiling: Yes,
Amynander, if Solon had only, like other poets, made poetry the
business of his life, and had completed the tale which he brought with
him from Egypt, and had not been compelled, by reason of the
factions and troubles which he found stirring in his own country
when he came home, to attend to other matters, in my opinion he
would have been as famous as Homer or Hesiod, or any poet.

  And what was the tale about, Critias? said Amynander.

  About the greatest action which the Athenians ever did, and which
ought to have been the most famous, but, through the lapse of time and
the destruction of the actors, it has not come down to us.

  Tell us, said the other, the whole story, and how and from whom
Solon heard this veritable tradition.

  He replied:-In the Egyptian Delta, at the head of which the river
Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district
of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and
is the city from which King Amasis came. The citizens have a deity for
their foundress; she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith, and is
asserted by them to be the same whom the Hellenes call Athene; they
are great lovers of the Athenians, and say that they are in some way
related to them. To this city came Solon, and was received there
with great honour; he asked the priests who were most skilful in
such matters, about antiquity, and made the discovery that neither
he nor any other Hellene knew anything worth mentioning about the
times of old. On one occasion, wishing to draw them on to speak of
antiquity, he began to tell about the most ancient things in our
part of the world-about Phoroneus, who is called "the first man,"
and about Niobe; and after the Deluge, of the survival of Deucalion
and Pyrrha; and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and
reckoning up the dates, tried to compute how many years ago the events
of which he was speaking happened. Thereupon one of the priests, who
was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are
never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you.
Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied,
that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down
among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with
age. And I will tell you why. There have been, and will be again, many
destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest
have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other
lesser ones by innumerable other causes. There is a story, which
even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of
Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he
was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all
that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt.
Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of
the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great
conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long
intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in
dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who
dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile,
who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us. When,
on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water,
the survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell
on the mountains, but those who, like you, live in cities are
carried by the rivers into the sea. Whereas in this land, neither then
nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the
fields, having always a tendency to come up from below; for which
reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient.

  The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of
summer does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in greater,
sometimes in lesser numbers. And whatever happened either in your
country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed-if
there were any actions noble or great or in any other way
remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are
preserved in our temples. Whereas just when you and other nations
are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites
of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven,
like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you
who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin
all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in
ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those
genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they
are no better than the tales of children. In the first place you
remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones; in
the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land
the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and
your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them
which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many
generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no
written word. For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge
of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in
every way the best governed of all cities, is said to have performed
the noblest deeds and to have had the fairest constitution of any of
which tradition tells, under the face of heaven.

  Solon marvelled at his words, and earnestly requested the priests to
inform him exactly and in order about these former citizens. You are
welcome to hear about them, Solon, said the priest, both for your
own sake and for that of your city, and above all, for the sake of the
goddess who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our
cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours,
receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and
afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded
in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old. As touching
your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of
their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of
the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred
registers themselves. If you compare these very laws with ours you
will find that many of ours are the counterpart of yours as they
were in the olden time. In the first place, there is the caste of
priests, which is separated from all the others; next, there are the
artificers, who ply their several crafts by themselves and do not
intermix; and also there is the class of shepherds and of hunters,
as well as that of husbandmen; and you will observe, too, that the
warriors in Egypt are distinct from all the other classes, and are
commanded by the law to devote themselves solely to military pursuits;
moreover, the weapons which they carry are shields and spears, a style
of equipment which the goddess taught of Asiatics first to us, as in
your part of the world first to you. Then as to wisdom, do you observe
how our law from the very first made a study of the whole order of
things, extending even to prophecy and medicine which gives health,
out of these divine elements deriving what was needful for human life,
and adding every sort of knowledge which was akin to them. All this
order and arrangement the goddess first imparted to you when
establishing your city; and she chose the spot of earth in which you
were born, because she saw that the happy temperament of the seasons
in that land would produce the wisest of men. Wherefore the goddess,
who was a lover both of war and of wisdom, selected and first of all
settled that spot which was the most likely to produce men likest
herself. And there you dwelt, having such laws as these and still
better ones, and excelled all mankind in all virtue, as became the
children and disciples of the gods.

  Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our
histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and
valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked
made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to
which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the
Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and
there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by
you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya
and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from
these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which
surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of
Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other
is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a
boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a
great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and
several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the
men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of
Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This vast
power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our
country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits;
and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her
virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage
and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the
rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having
undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed
over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet
subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell
within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent
earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune
all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island
of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For
which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable,
because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the
subsidence of the island.

  I have told you briefly, Socrates, what the aged Critias heard
from Solon and related to us. And when you were speaking yesterday
about your city and citizens, the tale which I have just been
repeating to you came into my mind, and I remarked with astonishment
how, by some mysterious coincidence, you agreed in almost every
particular with the narrative of Solon; but I did not like to speak at
the moment. For a long time had elapsed, and I had forgotten too much;
I thought that I must first of all run over the narrative in my own
mind, and then I would speak. And so I readily assented to your
request yesterday, considering that in all such cases the chief
difficulty is to find a tale suitable to our purpose, and that with
such a tale we should be fairly well provided.

  And therefore, as Hermocrates has told you, on my way home yesterday
I at once communicated the tale to my companions as I remembered it;
and after I left them, during the night by thinking I recovered nearly
the whole it. Truly, as is often said, the lessons of our childhood
make wonderful impression on our memories; for I am not sure that I
could remember all the discourse of yesterday, but I should be much
surprised if I forgot any of these things which I have heard very long
ago. I listened at the time with childlike interest to the old man's
narrative; he was very ready to teach me, and I asked him again and
again to repeat his words, so that like an indelible picture they were
branded into my mind. As soon as the day broke, I rehearsed them as he
spoke them to my companions, that they, as well as myself, might
have something to say. And now, Socrates, to make an end my preface, I
am ready to tell you the whole tale. I will give you not only the
general heads, but the particulars, as they were told to me. The
city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction,
we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the
ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you
imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they
will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying
that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. Let us
divide the subject among us, and all endeavour according to our
ability gracefully to execute the task which you have imposed upon us.
Consider then, Socrates, if this narrative is suited to the purpose,
or whether we should seek for some other instead.

  Soc. And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than
this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess,
and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?
How or where shall we find another if we abandon this? We cannot,
and therefore you must tell the tale, and good luck to you; and I in
return for my yesterday's discourse will now rest and be a listener.

  Crit. Let me proceed to explain to you, Socrates, the order in which
we have arranged our entertainment. Our intention is, that Timaeus,
who is the most of an astronomer amongst us, and has made the nature
of the universe his special study, should speak first, beginning
with the generation of the world and going down to the creation of
man; next, I am to receive the men whom he has created of whom some
will have profited by the excellent education which you have given
them; and then, in accordance with the tale of Solon, and equally with
his law, we will bring them into court and make them citizens, as if
they were those very Athenians whom the sacred Egyptian record has
recovered from oblivion, and thenceforward we will speak of them as
Athenians and fellow-citizens.

  Soc. I see that I shall receive in my turn a perfect and splendid
feast of reason. And now, Timaeus, you, I suppose, should speak
next, after duly calling upon the Gods.

  Tim. All men, Socrates, who have any degree of right feeling, at the
beginning of every enterprise, whether small or great, always call
upon God. And we, too, who are going to discourse of the nature of the
universe, how created or how existing without creation, if we be not
altogether out of our wits, must invoke the aid of Gods and
Goddesses and pray that our words may be acceptable to them and
consistent with themselves. Let this, then, be our invocation of the
Gods, to which I add an exhortation of myself to speak in such
manner as will be most intelligible to you, and will most accord
with my own intent.

  First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What
is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is
always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by
intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is
conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is
always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now
everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created
by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created. The work of
the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the
form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must
necessarily be made fair and perfect; but when he looks to the created
only, and uses a created pattern, it is not fair or perfect. Was the
heaven then or the world, whether called by this or by any other
more appropriate name-assuming the name, I am asking a question
which has to be asked at the beginning of an enquiry about
anything-was the world, I say, always in existence and without
beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being
visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and
all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in
a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must,
as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and
maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found
him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. And there is still
a question to be asked about him: Which of the patterns had the
artificer in view when he made the world-the pattern of the
unchangeable, or of that which is created? If the world be indeed fair
and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have looked to
that which is eternal; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is
true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must
have looked to, the eternal; for the world is the fairest of creations
and he is the best of causes. And having been created in this way, the
world has been framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended
by reason and mind and is unchangeable, and must therefore of
necessity, if this is admitted, be a copy of something. Now it is
all-important that the beginning of everything should be according
to nature. And in speaking of the copy and the original we may
assume that words are akin to the matter which they describe; when
they relate to the lasting and permanent and intelligible, they
ought to be lasting and unalterable, and, as far as their nature
allows, irrefutable and immovable-nothing less. But when they
express only the copy or likeness and not the eternal things
themselves, they need only be likely and analogous to the real
words. As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then,
Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation
of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are
altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another,
do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as
any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you
who are the judges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the
tale which is probable and enquire no further.

  Soc. Excellent, Timaeus; and we will do precisely as you bid us. The
prelude is charming, and is already accepted by us-may we beg of you
to proceed to the strain?

  Tim. Let me tell you then why the creator made this world of
generation. He was good, and the good can never have any jealousy of
anything. And being free from jealousy, he desired that all things
should be as like himself as they could be. This is in the truest
sense the origin of creation and of the world, as we shall do well
in believing on the testimony of wise men: God desired that all things
should be good and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable.
Wherefore also finding the whole visible sphere not at rest, but
moving in an irregular and disorderly fashion, out of disorder he
brought order, considering that this was in every way better than
the other. Now the deeds of the best could never be or have been other
than the fairest; and the creator, reflecting on the things which
are by nature visible, found that no unintelligent creature taken as a
whole was fairer than the intelligent taken as a whole; and that
intelligence could not be present in anything which was devoid of
soul. For which reason, when he was framing the universe, he put
intelligence in soul, and soul in body, that he might be the creator
of a work which was by nature fairest and best. Wherefore, using the
language of probability, we may say that the world became a living
creature truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of
God.

  This being supposed, let us proceed to the next stage: In the
likeness of what animal did the Creator make the world? It would be an
unworthy thing to liken it to any nature which exists as a part
only; for nothing can be beautiful which is like any imperfect
thing; but let us suppose the world to be the very image of that whole
of which all other animals both individually and in their tribes are
portions. For the original of the universe contains in itself all
intelligible beings, just as this world comprehends us and all other
visible creatures. For the Deity, intending to make this world like
the fairest and most perfect of intelligible beings, framed one
visible animal comprehending within itself all other animals of a
kindred nature. Are we right in saying that there is one world, or
that they are many and infinite? There must be one only, if the
created copy is to accord with the original. For that which includes
all other intelligible creatures cannot have a second or companion; in
that case there would be need of another living being which would
include both, and of which they would be parts, and the likeness would
be more truly said to resemble not them, but that other which included
them. In order then that the world might be solitary, like the perfect
animal, the creator made not two worlds or an infinite number of them;
but there is and ever will be one only-begotten and created heaven.

  Now that which is created is of necessity corporeal, and also
visible and tangible. And nothing is visible where there is no fire,
or tangible which has no solidity, and nothing is solid without earth.
Wherefore also God in the beginning of creation made the body of the
universe to consist of fire and earth. But two things cannot be
rightly put together without a third; there must be some bond of union
between them. And the fairest bond is that which makes the most
complete fusion of itself and the things which it combines; and
proportion is best adapted to effect such a union. For whenever in any
three numbers, whether cube or square, there is a mean, which is to
the last term what the first term is to it; and again, when the mean
is to the first term as the last term is to the mean-then the mean
becoming first and last, and the first and last both becoming means,
they will all of them of necessity come to be the same, and having
become the same with one another will be all one. If the universal
frame had been created a surface only and having no depth, a single
mean would have sufficed to bind together itself and the other
terms; but now, as the world must be solid, and solid bodies are
always compacted not by one mean but by two, God placed water and
air in the mean between fire and earth, and made them to have the same
proportion so far as was possible (as fire is to air so is air to
water, and as air is to water so is water to earth); and thus he bound
and put together a visible and tangible heaven. And for these reasons,
and out of such elements which are in number four, the body of the
world was created, and it was harmonised by proportion, and
therefore has the spirit of friendship; and having been reconciled
to itself, it was indissoluble by the hand of any other than the
framer.

  Now the creation took up the whole of each of the four elements; for
the Creator compounded the world out of all the fire and all the water
and all the air and all the earth, leaving no part of any of them
nor any power of them outside. His intention was, in the first
place, that the animal should be as far as possible a perfect whole
and of perfect parts: secondly, that it should be one, leaving no
remnants out of which another such world might be created: and also
that it should be free from old age and unaffected by disease.
Considering that if heat and cold and other powerful forces which
unite bodies surround and attack them from without when they are
unprepared, they decompose them, and by bringing diseases and old
age upon them, make them waste away-for this cause and on these
grounds he made the world one whole, having every part entire, and
being therefore perfect and not liable to old age and disease. And
he gave to the world the figure which was suitable and also natural.
Now to the animal which was to comprehend all animals, that figure was
suitable which comprehends within itself all other figures.
Wherefore he made the world in the form of a globe, round as from a
lathe, having its extremes in every direction equidistant from the
centre, the most perfect and the most like itself of all figures;
for he considered that the like is infinitely fairer than the
unlike. This he finished off, making the surface smooth all around for
many reasons; in the first place, because the living being had no need
of eyes when there was nothing remaining outside him to be seen; nor
of ears when there was nothing to be heard; and there was no
surrounding atmosphere to be breathed; nor would there have been any
use of organs by the help of which he might receive his food or get
rid of what he had already digested, since there was nothing which
went from him or came into him: for there was nothing beside him. Of
design he was created thus, his own waste providing his own food,
and all that he did or suffered taking place in and by himself. For
the Creator conceived that a being which was self-sufficient would
be far more excellent than one which lacked anything; and, as he had
no need to take anything or defend himself against any one, the
Creator did not think it necessary to bestow upon him hands: nor had
he any need of feet, nor of the whole apparatus of walking; but the
movement suited to his spherical form was assigned to him, being of
all the seven that which is most appropriate to mind and intelligence;
and he was made to move in the same manner and on the same spot,
within his own limits revolving in a circle. All the other six motions
were taken away from him, and he was made not to partake of their
deviations. And as this circular movement required no feet, the
universe was created without legs and without feet.

  Such was the whole plan of the eternal God about the god that was to
be, to whom for this reason he gave a body, smooth and even, having
a surface in every direction equidistant from the centre, a body
entire and perfect, and formed out of perfect bodies. And in the
centre he put the soul, which he diffused throughout the body,
making it also to be the exterior environment of it; and he made the
universe a circle moving in a circle, one and solitary, yet by
reason of its excellence able to converse with itself, and needing
no other friendship or acquaintance. Having these purposes in view
he created the world a blessed god.

  Now God did not make the soul after the body, although we are
speaking of them in this order; for having brought them together he
would never have allowed that the elder should be ruled by the
younger; but this is a random manner of speaking which we have,
because somehow we ourselves too are very much under the dominion of
chance. Whereas he made the soul in origin and excellence prior to and
older than the body, to be the ruler and mistress, of whom the body
was to be the subject. And he made her out of the following elements
and on this wise: Out of the indivisible and unchangeable, and also
out of that which is divisible and has to do with material bodies,
he compounded a third and intermediate kind of essence, partaking of
the nature of the same and of the other, and this compound he placed
accordingly in a mean between the indivisible, and the divisible and
material. He took the three elements of the same, the other, and the
essence, and mingled them into one form, compressing by force the
reluctant and unsociable nature of the other into the same. When he
had mingled them with the essence and out of three made one, he
again divided this whole into as many portions as was fitting, each
portion being a compound of the same, the other, and the essence.
And he proceeded to divide after this manner:-First of all, he took
away one part of the whole [1], and then he separated a second part
which was double the first [2], and then he took away a third part
which was half as much again as the second and three times as much
as the first [3], and then he took a fourth part which was twice as
much as the second [4], and a fifth part which was three times the
third [9], and a sixth part which was eight times the first [8], and a
seventh part which was twenty-seven times the first [27]. After this
he filled up the double intervals [i.e. between 1, 2, 4, 8] and the
triple [i.e. between 1, 3, 9, 27] cutting off yet other portions
from the mixture and placing them in the intervals, so that in each
interval there were two kinds of means, the one exceeding and exceeded
by equal parts of its extremes [as for example 1, 4/3, 2, in which the
mean 4/3 is one-third of 1 more than 1, and one-third of 2 less than
2], the other being that kind of mean which exceeds and is exceeded by
an equal number. Where there were intervals of 3/2 and of 4/3 and of
9/8, made by the connecting terms in the former intervals, he filled
up all the intervals of 4/3 with the interval of 9/8, leaving a
fraction over; and the interval which this fraction expressed was in
the ratio of 256 to 243. And thus the whole mixture out of which he
cut these portions was all exhausted by him. This entire compound he
divided lengthways into two parts, which he joined to one another at
the centre like the letter X, and bent them into a circular form,
connecting them with themselves and each other at the point opposite
to their original meeting-point; and, comprehending them in a
uniform revolution upon the same axis, he made the one the outer and
the other the inner circle. Now the motion of the outer circle he
called the motion of the same, and the motion of the inner circle
the motion of the other or diverse. The motion of the same he
carried round by the side to the right, and the motion of the
diverse diagonally to the left. And he gave dominion to the motion
of the same and like, for that he left single and undivided; but the
inner motion he divided in six places and made seven unequal circles
having their intervals in ratios of two-and three, three of each,
and bade the orbits proceed in a direction opposite to one another;
and three [Sun, Mercury, Venus] he made to move with equal
swiftness, and the remaining four [Moon, Saturn, Mars, Jupiter] to
move with unequal swiftness to the three and to one another, but in
due proportion.

  Now when the Creator had framed the soul according to his will, he
formed within her the corporeal universe, and brought the two
together, and united them centre to centre. The soul, interfused
everywhere from the centre to the circumference of heaven, of which
also she is the external envelopment, herself turning in herself,
began a divine beginning of never ceasing and rational life enduring
throughout all time. The body of heaven is visible, but the soul is
invisible, and partakes of reason and harmony, and being made by the
best of intellectual and everlasting natures, is the best of things
created. And because she is composed of the same and of the other
and of the essence, these three, and is divided and united in due
proportion, and in her revolutions returns upon herself, the soul,
when touching anything which has essence, whether dispersed in parts
or undivided, is stirred through all her powers, to declare the
sameness or difference of that thing and some other; and to what
individuals are related, and by what affected, and in what way and how
and when, both in the world of generation and in the world of
immutable being. And when reason, which works with equal truth,
whether she be in the circle of the diverse or of the same-in
voiceless silence holding her onward course in the sphere of the
self-moved-when reason, I say, is hovering around the sensible world
and when the circle of the diverse also moving truly imparts the
intimations of sense to the whole soul, then arise opinions and
beliefs sure and certain. But when reason is concerned with the
rational, and the circle of the same moving smoothly declares it, then
intelligence and knowledge are necessarily perfected. And if any one
affirms that in which these two are found to be other than the soul,
he will say the very opposite of the truth.

  When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving
and living, the created image of the eternal gods, he rejoiced, and in
his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original;
and as this was eternal, he sought to make the universe eternal, so
far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting,
but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was
impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of
eternity, and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image
eternal but moving according to number, while eternity itself rests in
unity; and this image we call time. For there were no days and
nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he
constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of
time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we
unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal essence; for we
say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is"
alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only
to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which
is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever
did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is
subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible
things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of
time, which imitates eternity and revolves according to a law of
number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and
what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become
and that the non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate
modes of expression. But perhaps this whole subject will be more
suitably discussed on some other occasion.

  Time, then, and the heaven came into being at the same instant in
order that, having been created together, if ever there was to be a
dissolution of them, they might be dissolved together. It was framed
after the pattern of the eternal nature, that it might resemble this
as far as was possible; for the pattern exists from eternity, and
the created heaven has been, and is, and will be, in all time. Such
was the mind and thought of God in the creation of time. The sun and
moon and five other stars, which are called the planets, were
created by him in order to distinguish and preserve the numbers of
time; and when he had made-their several bodies, he placed them in the
orbits in which the circle of the other was revolving-in seven
orbits seven stars. First, there was the moon in the orbit nearest the
earth, and next the sun, in the second orbit above the earth; then
came the morning star and the star sacred to Hermes, moving in
orbits which have an equal swiftness with the sun, but in an
opposite direction; and this is the reason why the sun and Hermes
and Lucifer overtake and are overtaken by each other. To enumerate the
places which he assigned to the other stars, and to give all the
reasons why he assigned them, although a secondary matter, would
give more trouble than the primary. These things at some future
time, when we are at leisure, may have the consideration which they
deserve, but not at present.

  Now, when all the stars which were necessary to the creation of time
had attained a motion suitable to them,-and had become living
creatures having bodies fastened by vital chains, and learnt their
appointed task, moving in the motion of the diverse, which is
diagonal, and passes through and is governed by the motion of the
same, they revolved, some in a larger and some in a lesser orbit-those
which had the lesser orbit revolving faster, and those which had the
larger more slowly. Now by reason of the motion of the same, those
which revolved fastest appeared to be overtaken by those which moved
slower although they really overtook them; for the motion of the
same made them all turn in a spiral, and, because some went one way
and some another, that which receded most slowly from the sphere of
the same, which was the swiftest, appeared to follow it most nearly.
That there might be some visible measure of their relative swiftness
and slowness as they proceeded in their eight courses, God lighted a
fire, which we now call the sun, in the second from the earth of these
orbits, that it might give light to the whole of heaven, and that
the animals, as many as nature intended, might participate in
number, learning arithmetic from the revolution of the same and the
like. Thus then, and for this reason the night and the day were
created, being the period of the one most intelligent revolution.
And the month is accomplished when the moon has completed her orbit
and overtaken the sun, and the year when the sun has completed his own
orbit. Mankind, with hardly an exception, have not remarked the
periods of the other stars, and they have no name for them, and do not
measure them against one another by the help of number, and hence they
can scarcely be said to know that their wanderings, being infinite
in number and admirable for their variety, make up time. And yet there
is no difficulty in seeing that the perfect number of time fulfils the
perfect year when all the eight revolutions, having their relative
degrees of swiftness, are accomplished together and attain their
completion at the same time, measured by the rotation of the same
and equally moving. After this manner, and for these reasons, came
into being such of the stars as in their heavenly progress received
reversals of motion, to the end that the created heaven might
imitate the eternal nature, and be as like as possible to the
perfect and intelligible animal.

  Thus far and until the birth of time the created universe was made
in the likeness of the original, but inasmuch as all animals were
not yet comprehended therein, it was still unlike. What remained,
the creator then proceeded to fashion after the nature of the pattern.
Now as in the ideal animal the mind perceives ideas or species of a
certain nature and number, he thought that this created animal ought
to have species of a like nature and number. There are four such;
one of them is the heavenly race of the gods; another, the race of
birds whose way is in the air; the third, the watery species; and
the fourth, the pedestrian and land creatures. Of the heavenly and
divine, he created the greater part out of fire, that they might be
the brightest of all things and fairest to behold, and he fashioned
them after the likeness of the universe in the figure of a circle, and
made them follow the intelligent motion of the supreme, distributing
them over the whole circumference of heaven, which was to be a true
cosmos or glorious world spangled with them all over. And he gave to
each of them two movements: the first, a movement on the same spot
after the same manner, whereby they ever continue to think
consistently the same thoughts about the same things; the second, a
forward movement, in which they are controlled by the revolution of
the same and the like; but by the other five motions they were
unaffected, in order that each of them might attain the highest
perfection. And for this reason the fixed stars were created, to be
divine and eternal animals, ever-abiding and revolving after the
same manner and on the same spot; and the other stars which reverse
their motion and are subject to deviations of this kind, were
created in the manner already described. The earth, which is our
nurse, clinging around the pole which is extended through the
universe, he framed to be the guardian and artificer of night and day,
first and eldest of gods that are in the interior of heaven. Vain
would be the attempt to tell all the figures of them circling as in
dance, and their juxtapositions, and the return of them in their
revolutions upon themselves, and their approximations, and to say
which of these deities in their conjunctions meet, and which of them
are in opposition, and in what order they get behind and before one
another, and when they are severally eclipsed to our sight and again
reappear, sending terrors and intimations of the future to those who
cannot calculate their movements-to attempt to tell of all this
without a visible representation of the heavenly system would be
labour in vain. Enough on this head; and now let what we have said
about the nature of the created and visible gods have an end.

  To know or tell the origin of the other divinities is beyond us, and
we must accept the traditions of the men of old time who affirm
themselves to be the offspring of the gods-that is what they say-and
they must surely have known their own ancestors. How can we doubt
the word of the children of the gods? Although they give no probable
or certain proofs, still, as they declare that they are speaking of
what took place in their own family, we must conform to custom and
believe them. In this manner, then, according to them, the genealogy
of these gods is to be received and set forth.

  Oceanus and Tethys were the children of Earth and Heaven, and from
these sprang Phorcys and Cronos and Rhea, and all that generation; and
from Cronos and Rhea sprang Zeus and Here, and all those who are
said to be their brethren, and others who were the children of these.

  Now, when all of them, both those who visibly appear in their
revolutions as well as those other gods who are of a more retiring
nature, had come into being, the creator of the universe addressed
them in these words: "Gods, children of gods, who are my works, and of
whom I am the artificer and father, my creations are indissoluble,
if so I will. All that is bound may be undone, but only an evil
being would wish to undo that which is harmonious and happy.
Wherefore, since ye are but creatures, ye are not altogether
immortal and indissoluble, but ye shall certainly not be dissolved,
nor be liable to the fate of death, having in my will a greater and
mightier bond than those with which ye were bound at the time of
your birth. And now listen to my instructions:-Three tribes of
mortal beings remain to be created-without them the universe will be
incomplete, for it will not contain every kind of animal which it
ought to contain, if it is to be perfect. On the other hand, if they
were created by me and received life at my hands, they would be on
an equality with the gods. In order then that they may be mortal,
and that this universe may be truly universal, do ye, according to
your natures, betake yourselves to the formation of animals, imitating
the power which was shown by me in creating you. The part of them
worthy of the name immortal, which is called divine and is the guiding
principle of those who are willing to follow justice and you-of that
divine part I will myself sow the seed, and having made a beginning, I
will hand the work over to you. And do ye then interweave the mortal
with the immortal, and make and beget living creatures, and give
them food, and make them to grow, and receive them again in death."

  Thus he spake, and once more into the cup in which he had previously
mingled the soul of the universe he poured the remains of the
elements, and mingled them in much the same manner; they were not,
however, pure as before, but diluted to the second and third degree.
And having made it he divided the whole mixture into souls equal in
number to the stars, and assigned each soul to a star; and having
there placed them as in a chariot, he showed them the nature of the
universe, and declared to them the laws of destiny, according to which
their first birth would be one and the same for all,-no one should
suffer a disadvantage at his hands; they were to be sown in the
instruments of time severally adapted to them, and to come forth the
most religious of animals; and as human nature was of two kinds, the
superior race would here after be called man. Now, when they should be
implanted in bodies by necessity, and be always gaining or losing some
part of their bodily substance, then in the first place it would be
necessary that they should all have in them one and the same faculty
of sensation, arising out of irresistible impressions; in the second
place, they must have love, in which pleasure and pain mingle; also
fear and anger, and the feelings which are akin or opposite to them;
if they conquered these they would live righteously, and if they
were conquered by them, unrighteously. He who lived well during his
appointed time was to return and dwell in his native star, and there
he would have a blessed and congenial existence. But if he failed in
attaining this, at the second birth he would pass into a woman, and
if, when in that state of being, he did not desist from evil, he would
continually be changed into some brute who resembled him in the evil
nature which he had acquired, and would not cease from his toils and
transformations until he followed the revolution of the same and the
like within him, and overcame by the help of reason the turbulent
and irrational mob of later accretions, made up of fire and air and
water and earth, and returned to the form of his first and better
state. Having given all these laws to his creatures, that he might
be guiltless of future evil in any of them, the creator sowed some
of them in the earth, and some in the moon, and some in the other
instruments of time; and when he had sown them he committed to the
younger gods the fashioning of their mortal bodies, and desired them
to furnish what was still lacking to the human soul, and having made
all the suitable additions, to rule over them, and to pilot the mortal
animal in the best and wisest manner which they could, and avert
from him all but self-inflicted evils.

  When the creator had made all these ordinances he remained in his
own accustomed nature, and his children heard and were obedient to
their father's word, and receiving from him the immortal principle
of a mortal creature, in imitation of their own creator they
borrowed portions of fire, and earth, and water, and air from the
world, which were hereafter to be restored-these they took and
welded them together, not with the indissoluble chains by which they
were themselves bound, but with little pegs too small to be visible,
making up out of all the four elements each separate body, and
fastening the courses of the immortal soul in a body which was in a
state of perpetual influx and efflux. Now these courses, detained as
in a vast river, neither overcame nor were overcome; but were hurrying
and hurried to and fro, so that the whole animal was moved and
progressed, irregularly however and irrationally and anyhow, in all
the six directions of motion, wandering backwards and forwards, and
right and left, and up and down, and in all the six directions. For
great as was the advancing and retiring flood which provided
nourishment, the affections produced by external contact caused
still greater tumult-when the body of any one met and came into
collision with some external fire, or with the solid earth or the
gliding waters, or was caught in the tempest borne on the air, and the
motions produced by any of these impulses were carried through the
body to the soul. All such motions have consequently received the
general name of "sensations," which they still retain. And they did in
fact at that time create a very great and mighty movement; uniting
with the ever flowing stream in stirring up and violently shaking
the courses of the soul, they completely stopped the revolution of the
same by their opposing current, and hindered it from predominating and
advancing; and they so disturbed the nature of the other or diverse,
that the three double intervals [i.e. between 1, 2, 4, 8], and the
three triple intervals [i.e. between 1, 3, 9, 27], together with the
mean terms and connecting links which are expressed by the ratios of 3
: 2, and 4 : 3, and of 9 : 8-these, although they cannot be wholly
undone except by him who united them, were twisted by them in all
sorts of ways, and the circles were broken and disordered in every
possible manner, so that when they moved they were tumbling to pieces,
and moved irrationally, at one time in a reverse direction, and then
again obliquely, and then upside down, as you might imagine a person
who is upside down and has his head leaning upon the ground and his
feet up against something in the air; and when he is in such a
position, both he and the spectator fancy that the right of either
is his left, and left right. If, when powerfully experiencing these
and similar effects, the revolutions of the soul come in contact
with some external thing, either of the class of the same or of the
other, they speak of the same or of the other in a manner the very
opposite of the truth; and they become false and foolish, and there is
no course or revolution in them which has a guiding or directing
power; and if again any sensations enter in violently from without and
drag after them the whole vessel of the soul, then the courses of
the soul, though they seem to conquer, are really conquered.

  And by reason of all these affections, the soul, when encased in a
mortal body, now, as in the beginning, is at first without
intelligence; but when the flood of growth and nutriment abates, and
the courses of the soul, calming down, go their own way and become
steadier as time goes on, then the several circles return to their
natural form, and their revolutions are corrected, and they call the
same and the other by their right names, and make the possessor of
them to become a rational being. And if these combine in him with
any true nurture or education, he attains the fulness and health of
the perfect man, and escapes the worst disease of all; but if he
neglects education he walks lame to the end of his life, and returns
imperfect and good for nothing to the world below. This, however, is a
later stage; at present we must treat more exactly the subject
before us, which involves a preliminary enquiry into the generation of
the body and its members, and as to how the soul was created-for
what reason and by what providence of the gods; and holding fast to
probability, we must pursue our way.

  First, then, the gods, imitating the spherical shape of the
universe, enclosed the two divine courses in a spherical body, that,
namely, which we now term the head, being the most divine part of us
and the lord of all that is in us: to this the gods, when they put
together the body, gave all the other members to be servants,
considering that it partook of every sort of motion. In order then
that it might not tumble about among the high and deep places of the
earth, but might be able to get over the one and out of the other,
they provided the body to be its vehicle and means of locomotion;
which consequently had length and was furnished with four limbs
extended and flexible; these God contrived to be instruments of
locomotion with which it might take hold and find support, and so be
able to pass through all places, carrying on high the dwelling-place
of the most sacred and divine part of us. Such was the origin of
legs and hands, which for this reason were attached to every man;
and the gods, deeming the front part of man to be more honourable
and more fit to command than the hinder part, made us to move mostly
in a forward direction. Wherefore man must needs have his front part
unlike and distinguished from the rest of his body.

  And so in the vessel of the head, they first of all put a face in
which they inserted organs to minister in all things to the providence
of the soul, and they appointed this part, which has authority, to
be by nature the part which is in front. And of the organs they
first contrived the eyes to give light, and the principle according to
which they were inserted was as follows: So much of fire as would
not burn, but gave a gentle light, they formed into a substance akin
to the light of every-day life; and the pure fire which is within us
and related thereto they made to flow through the eyes in a stream
smooth and dense, compressing the whole eye, and especially the centre
part, so that it kept out everything of a coarser nature, and
allowed to pass only this pure element. When the light of day
surrounds the stream of vision, then like falls upon like, and they
coalesce, and one body is formed by natural affinity in the line of
vision, wherever the light that falls from within meets with an
external object. And the whole stream of vision, being similarly
affected in virtue of similarity, diffuses the motions of what it
touches or what touches it over the whole body, until they reach the
soul, causing that perception which we call sight. But when night
comes on and the external and kindred fire departs, then the stream of
vision is cut off; for going forth to an unlike element it is
changed and extinguished, being no longer of one nature with the
surrounding atmosphere which is now deprived of fire: and so the eye
no longer sees, and we feel disposed to sleep. For when the eyelids,
which the gods invented for the preservation of sight, are closed,
they keep in the internal fire; and the power of the fire diffuses and
equalises the inward motions; when they are equalised, there is
rest, and when the rest is profound, sleep comes over us scarce
disturbed by dreams; but where the greater motions still remain, of
whatever nature and in whatever locality, they engender
corresponding visions in dreams, which are remembered by us when we
are awake and in the external world. And now there is no longer any
difficulty in understanding the creation of images in mirrors and
all smooth and bright surfaces. For from the communion of the internal
and external fires, and again from the union of them and their
numerous transformations when they meet in the mirror, all these
appearances of necessity arise, when the fire from the face
coalesces with the fire from the eye on the bright and smooth surface.
And right appears left and left right, because the visual rays come
into contact with the rays emitted by the object in a manner
contrary to the usual mode of meeting; but the right appears right,
and the left left, when the position of one of the two concurring
lights is reversed; and this happens when the mirror is concave and
its smooth surface repels the right stream of vision to the left side,
and the left to the right. Or if the mirror be turned vertically, then
the concavity makes the countenance appear to be all upside down,
and the lower rays are driven upwards and the upper downwards.

  All these are to be reckoned among the second and co-operative
causes which God, carrying into execution the idea of the best as
far as possible, uses as his ministers. They are thought by most men
not to be the second, but the prime causes of all things, because they
freeze and heat, and contract and dilate, and the like. But they are
not so, for they are incapable of reason or intellect; the only
being which can properly have mind is the invisible soul, whereas fire
and water, and earth and air, are all of them visible bodies. The
lover of intellect and knowledge ought to explore causes of
intelligent nature first of all, and, secondly, of those things which,
being moved by others, are compelled to move others. And this is
what we too must do. Both kinds of causes should be acknowledged by
us, but a distinction should be made between those which are endowed
with mind and are the workers of things fair and good, and those which
are deprived of intelligence and always produce chance effects without
order or design. Of the second or co-operative causes of sight,
which help to give to the eyes the power which they now possess,
enough has been said. I will therefore now proceed to speak of the
higher use and purpose for which God has given them to us. The sight
in my opinion is the source of the greatest benefit to us, for had
we never seen the stars, and the sun, and the heaven, none of the
words which we have spoken about the universe would ever have been
uttered. But now the sight of day and night, and the months and the
revolutions of the years, have created number, and have given us a
conception of time, and the power of enquiring about the nature of the
universe; and from this source we have derived philosophy, than
which no greater good ever was or will be given by the gods to
mortal man. This is the greatest boon of sight: and of the lesser
benefits why should I speak? even the ordinary man if he were deprived
of them would bewail his loss, but in vain. Thus much let me say
however: God invented and gave us sight to the end that we might
behold the courses of intelligence in the heaven, and apply them to
the courses of our own intelligence which are akin to them, the
unperturbed to the perturbed; and that we, learning them and partaking
of the natural truth of reason, might imitate the absolutely
unerring courses of God and regulate our own vagaries. The same may be
affirmed of speech and hearing: they have been given by the gods to
the same end and for a like reason. For this is the principal end of
speech, whereto it most contributes. Moreover, so much of music as
is adapted to the sound of the voice and to the sense of hearing is
granted to us for the sake of harmony; and harmony, which has
motions akin to the revolutions of our souls, is not regarded by the
intelligent votary of the Muses as given by them with a view to
irrational pleasure, which is deemed to be the purpose of it in our
day, but as meant to correct any discord which may have arisen in
the courses of the soul, and to be our ally in bringing her into
harmony and agreement with herself; and rhythm too was given by them
for the same reason, on account of the irregular and graceless ways
which prevail among mankind generally, and to help us against them.

  Thus far in what we have been saying, with small exception, the
works of intelligence have been set forth; and now we must place by
the side of them in our discourse the things which come into being
through necessity-for the creation is mixed, being made up of
necessity and mind. Mind, the ruling power, persuaded necessity to
bring the greater part of created things to perfection, and thus and
after this manner in the beginning, when the influence of reason got
the better of necessity, the universe was created. But if a person
will truly tell of the way in which the work was accomplished, he must
include the other influence of the variable cause as well.
Wherefore, we must return again and find another suitable beginning,
as about the former matters, so also about these. To which end we must
consider the nature of fire, and water, and air, and earth, such as
they were prior to the creation of the heaven, and what was
happening to them in this previous state; for no one has as yet
explained the manner of their generation, but we speak of fire and the
rest of them, whatever they mean, as though men knew their natures,
and we maintain them to be the first principles and letters or
elements of the whole, when they cannot reasonably be compared by a
man of any sense even to syllables or first compounds. And let me
say thus much: I will not now speak of the first principle or
principles of all things, or by whatever name they are to be called,
for this reason-because it is difficult to set forth my opinion
according to the method of discussion which we are at present
employing. Do not imagine, any more than I can bring myself to
imagine, that I should be right in undertaking so great and
difficult a task. Remembering what I said at first about
probability, I will do my best to give as probable an explanation as
any other-or rather, more probable; and I will first go back to the
beginning and try to speak of each thing and of all. Once more,
then, at the commencement of my discourse, I call upon God, and beg
him to be our saviour out of a strange and unwonted enquiry, and to
bring us to the haven of probability. So now let us begin again.

  This new beginning of our discussion of the universe requires a
fuller division than the former; for then we made two classes, now a
third must be revealed. The two sufficed for the former discussion:
one, which we assumed, was a pattern intelligible and always the same;
and the second was only the imitation of the pattern, generated and
visible. There is also a third kind which we did not distinguish at
the time, conceiving that the two would be enough. But now the
argument seems to require that we should set forth in words another
kind, which is difficult of explanation and dimly seen. What nature
are we to attribute to this new kind of being? We reply, that it is
the receptacle, and in a manner the nurse, of all generation. I have
spoken the truth; but I must express myself in clearer language, and
this will be an arduous task for many reasons, and in particular
because I must first raise questions concerning fire and the other
elements, and determine what each of them is; for to say, with any
probability or certitude, which of them should be called water
rather than fire, and which should be called any of them rather than
all or some one of them, is a difficult matter. How, then, shall we
settle this point, and what questions about the elements may be fairly
raised?

  In the first place, we see that what we just now called water, by
condensation, I suppose, becomes stone and earth; and this same
element, when melted and dispersed, passes into vapour and air. Air,
again, when inflamed, becomes fire; and again fire, when condensed and
extinguished, passes once more into the form of air; and once more,
air, when collected and condensed, produces cloud and mist; and from
these, when still more compressed, comes flowing water, and from water
comes earth and stones once more; and thus generation appears to be
transmitted from one to the other in a circle. Thus, then, as the
several elements never present themselves in the same form, how can
any one have the assurance to assert positively that any of them,
whatever it may be, is one thing rather than another? No one can.
But much the safest plan is to speak of them as follows:-Anything
which we see to be continually changing, as, for example, fire, we
must not call "this" or "that," but rather say that it is "of such a
nature"; nor let us speak of water as "this"; but always as "such";
nor must we imply that there is any stability in any of those things
which we indicate by the use of the words "this" and "that," supposing
ourselves to signify something thereby; for they are too volatile to
be detained in any such expressions as "this," or "that," or "relative
to this," or any other mode of speaking which represents them as
permanent. We ought not to apply "this" to any of them, but rather the
word "such"; which expresses the similar principle circulating in each
and all of them; for example, that should be called "fire" which is of
such a nature always, and so of everything that has generation. That
in which the elements severally grow up, and appear, and decay, is
alone to be called by the name "this" or "that"; but that which is
of a certain nature, hot or white, or anything which admits of
opposite equalities, and all things that are compounded of them, ought
not to be so denominated. Let me make another attempt to explain my
meaning more clearly. Suppose a person to make all kinds of figures of
gold and to be always transmuting one form into all the
rest-somebody points to one of them and asks what it is. By far the
safest and truest answer is, That is gold; and not to call the
triangle or any other figures which are formed in the gold "these," as
though they had existence, since they are in process of change while
he is making the assertion; but if the questioner be willing to take
the safe and indefinite expression, "such," we should be satisfied.
And the same argument applies to the universal nature which receives
all bodies-that must be always called the same; for, while receiving
all things, she never departs at all from her own nature, and never in
any way, or at any time, assumes a form like that of any of the things
which enter into her; she is the natural recipient of all impressions,
and is stirred and informed by them, and appears different from time
to time by reason of them. But the forms which enter into and go out
of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their
patterns in wonderful and inexplicable manner, which we will hereafter
investigate. For the present we have only to conceive of three
natures: first, that which is in process of generation; secondly, that
in which the generation takes place; and thirdly, that of which the
thing generated is a resemblance. And we may liken the receiving
principle to a mother, and the source or spring to a father, and the
intermediate nature to a child; and may remark further, that if the
model is to take every variety of form, then the matter in which the
model is fashioned will not be duly prepared, unless it is formless,
and free from the impress of any of these shapes which it is hereafter
to receive from without. For if the matter were like any of the
supervening forms, then whenever any opposite or entirely different
nature was stamped upon its surface, it would take the impression
badly, because it would intrude its own shape. Wherefore, that which
is to receive all forms should have no form; as in making perfumes
they first contrive that the liquid substance which is to receive
the scent shall be as inodorous as possible; or as those who wish to
impress figures on soft substances do not allow any previous
impression to remain, but begin by making the surface as even and
smooth as possible. In the same way that which is to receive
perpetually and through its whole extent the resemblances of all
eternal beings ought to be devoid of any particular form. Wherefore,
the mother and receptacle of all created and visible and in any way
sensible things, is not to be termed earth, or air, or fire, or water,
or any of their compounds or any of the elements from which these
are derived, but is an invisible and formless being which receives all
things and in some mysterious way partakes of the intelligible, and is
most incomprehensible. In saying this we shall not be far wrong; as
far, however, as we can attain to a knowledge of her from the previous
considerations, we may truly say that fire is that part of her
nature which from time to time is inflamed, and water that which is
moistened, and that the mother substance becomes earth and air, in
so far as she receives the impressions of them.

  Let us consider this question more precisely. Is there any
self-existent fire? and do all those things which we call
self-existent exist? or are only those things which we see, or in some
way perceive through the bodily organs, truly existent, and nothing
whatever besides them? And is all that which, we call an
intelligible essence nothing at all, and only a name? Here is a
question which we must not leave unexamined or undetermined, nor
must we affirm too confidently that there can be no decision;
neither must we interpolate in our present long discourse a digression
equally long, but if it is possible to set forth a great principle
in a few words, that is just what we want.

  Thus I state my view:-If mind and true opinion are two distinct
classes, then I say that there certainly are these self-existent ideas
unperceived by sense, and apprehended only by the mind; if, however,
as some say, true opinion differs in no respect from mind, then
everything that we perceive through the body is to be regarded as most
real and certain. But we must affirm that to be distinct, for they
have a distinct origin and are of a different nature; the one is
implanted in us by instruction, the other by persuasion; the one is
always accompanied by true reason, the other is without reason; the
one cannot be overcome by persuasion, but the other can: and lastly,
every man may be said to share in true opinion, but mind is the
attribute of the gods and of very few men. Wherefore also we must
acknowledge that there is one kind of being which is always the
same, uncreated and indestructible, never receiving anything into
itself from without, nor itself going out to any other, but
invisible and imperceptible by any sense, and of which the
contemplation is granted to intelligence only. And there is another
nature of the same name with it, and like to it, perceived by sense,
created, always in motion, becoming in place and again vanishing out
of place, which is apprehended by opinion and sense. And there is a
third nature, which is space, and is eternal, and admits not of
destruction and provides a home for all created things, and is
apprehended without the help of sense, by a kind of spurious reason,
and is hardly real; which we beholding as in a dream, say of all
existence that it must of necessity be in some place and occupy a
space, but that what is neither in heaven nor in earth has no
existence. Of these and other things of the same kind, relating to the
true and waking reality of nature, we have only this dreamlike
sense, and we are unable to cast off sleep and determine the truth
about them. For an image, since the reality, after which it is
modelled, does not belong to it, and it exists ever as the fleeting
shadow of some other, must be inferred to be in another [i.e. in space
], grasping existence in some way or other, or it could not be at all.
But true and exact reason, vindicating the nature of true being,
maintains that while two things [i.e. the image and space] are
different they cannot exist one of them in the other and so be one and
also two at the same time.

  Thus have I concisely given the result of my thoughts; and my
verdict is that being and space and generation, these three, existed
in their three ways before the heaven; and that the nurse of
generation, moistened by water and inflamed by fire, and receiving the
forms of earth and air, and experiencing all the affections which
accompany these, presented a strange variety of appearances; and being
full of powers which were neither similar nor equally balanced, was
never in any part in a state of equipoise, but swaying unevenly hither
and thither, was shaken by them, and by its motion again shook them;
and the elements when moved were separated and carried continually,
some one way, some another; as, when rain is shaken and winnowed by
fans and other instruments used in the threshing of corn, the close
and heavy particles are borne away and settle in one direction, and
the loose and light particles in another. In this manner, the four
kinds or elements were then shaken by the receiving vessel, which,
moving like a winnowing machine, scattered far away from one another
the elements most unlike, and forced the most similar elements into
dose contact. Wherefore also the various elements had different places
before they were arranged so as to form the universe. At first, they
were all without reason and measure. But when the world began to get
into order, fire and water and earth and air had only certain faint
traces of themselves, and were altogether such as everything might
be expected to be in the absence of God; this, I say, was their nature
at that time, and God fashioned them by form and number. Let it be
consistently maintained by us in all that we say that God made them as
far as possible the fairest and best, out of things which were not
fair and good. And now I will endeavour to show you the disposition
and generation of them by an unaccustomed argument, which am compelled
to use; but I believe that you will be able to follow me, for your
education has made you familiar with the methods of science.

  In the first place, then, as is evident to all, fire and earth and
water and air are bodies. And every sort of body possesses solidity,
and every solid must necessarily be contained in planes; and every
plane rectilinear figure is composed of triangles; and all triangles
are originally of two kinds, both of which are made up of one right
and two acute angles; one of them has at either end of the base the
half of a divided right angle, having equal sides, while in the
other the right angle is divided into unequal parts, having unequal
sides. These, then, proceeding by a combination of probability with
demonstration, we assume to be the original elements of fire and the
other bodies; but the principles which are prior to these God only
knows, and he of men who is the friend God. And next we have to
determine what are the four most beautiful bodies which are unlike one
another, and of which some are capable of resolution into one another;
for having discovered thus much, we shall know the true origin of
earth and fire and of the proportionate and intermediate elements. And
then we shall not be willing to allow that there are any distinct
kinds of visible bodies fairer than these. Wherefore we must endeavour
to construct the four forms of bodies which excel in beauty, and
then we shall be able to say that we have sufficiently apprehended
their nature. Now of the two triangles, the isosceles has one form
only; the scalene or unequal-sided has an infinite number. Of the
infinite forms we must select the most beautiful, if we are to proceed
in due order, and any one who can point out a more beautiful form than
ours for the construction of these bodies, shall carry off the palm,
not as an enemy, but as a friend. Now, the one which we maintain to be
the most beautiful of all the many triangles (and we need not speak of
the others) is that of which the double forms a third triangle which
is equilateral; the reason of this would be long to tell; he who
disproves what we are saying, and shows that we are mistaken, may
claim a friendly victory. Then let us choose two triangles, out of
which fire and the other elements have been constructed, one
isosceles, the other having the square of the longer side equal to
three times the square of the lesser side.

  Now is the time to explain what was before obscurely said: there was
an error in imagining that all the four elements might be generated by
and into one another; this, I say, was an erroneous supposition, for
there are generated from the triangles which we have selected four
kinds-three from the one which has the sides unequal; the fourth alone
is framed out of the isosceles triangle. Hence they cannot all be
resolved into one another, a great number of small bodies being
combined into a few large ones, or the converse. But three of them can
be thus resolved and compounded, for they all spring from one, and
when the greater bodies are broken up, many small bodies will spring
up out of them and take their own proper figures; or, again, when many
small bodies are dissolved into their triangles, if they become one,
they will form one large mass of another kind. So much for their
passage into one another. I have now to speak of their several
kinds, and show out of what combinations of numbers each of them was
formed. The first will be the simplest and smallest construction,
and its element is that triangle which has its hypotenuse twice the
lesser side. When two such triangles are joined at the diagonal, and
this is repeated three times, and the triangles rest their diagonals
and shorter sides on the same point as a centre, a single
equilateral triangle is formed out of six triangles; and four
equilateral triangles, if put together, make out of every three
plane angles one solid angle, being that which is nearest to the
most obtuse of plane angles; and out of the combination of these
four angles arises the first solid form which distributes into equal
and similar parts the whole circle in which it is inscribed. The
second species of solid is formed out of the same triangles, which
unite as eight equilateral triangles and form one solid angle out of
four plane angles, and out of six such angles the second body is
completed. And the third body is made up of 120 triangular elements,
forming twelve solid angles, each of them included in five plane
equilateral triangles, having altogether twenty bases, each of which
is an equilateral triangle. The one element [that is, the triangle
which has its hypotenuse twice the lesser side] having generated these
figures, generated no more; but the isosceles triangle produced the
fourth elementary figure, which is compounded of four such
triangles, joining their right angles in a centre, and forming one
equilateral quadrangle. Six of these united form eight solid angles,
each of which is made by the combination of three plane right
angles; the figure of the body thus composed is a cube, having six
plane quadrangular equilateral bases. There was yet a fifth
combination which God used in the delineation of the universe.

  Now, he who, duly reflecting on all this, enquires whether the
worlds are to be regarded as indefinite or definite in number, will be
of opinion that the notion of their indefiniteness is characteristic
of a sadly indefinite and ignorant mind. He, however, who raises the
question whether they are to be truly regarded as one or five, takes
up a more reasonable position. Arguing from probabilities, I am of
opinion that they are one; another, regarding the question from
another point of view, will be of another mind. But, leaving this
enquiry, let us proceed to distribute the elementary forms, which have
now been created in idea, among the four elements.

  To earth, then, let us assign the cubical form; for earth is the
most immoveable of the four and the most plastic of all bodies, and
that which has the most stable bases must of necessity be of such a
nature. Now, of the triangles which we assumed at first, that which
has two equal sides is by nature more firmly based than that which has
unequal sides; and of the compound figures which are formed out of
either, the plane equilateral quadrangle has necessarily, a more
stable basis than the equilateral triangle, both in the whole and in
the parts. Wherefore, in assigning this figure to earth, we adhere
to probability; and to water we assign that one of the remaining forms
which is the least moveable; and the most moveable of them to fire;
and to air that which is intermediate. Also we assign the smallest
body to fire, and the greatest to water, and the intermediate in
size to air; and, again, the acutest body to fire, and the next in
acuteness to, air, and the third to water. Of all these elements, that
which has the fewest bases must necessarily be the most moveable,
for it must be the acutest and most penetrating in every way, and also
the lightest as being composed of the smallest number of similar
particles: and the second body has similar properties in a second
degree, and the third body in the third degree. Let it be agreed,
then, both according to strict reason and according to probability,
that the pyramid is the solid which is the original element and seed
of fire; and let us assign the element which was next in the order
of generation to air, and the third to water. We must imagine all
these to be so small that no single particle of any of the four
kinds is seen by us on account of their smallness: but when many of
them are collected together their aggregates are seen. And the
ratios of their numbers, motions, and other properties, everywhere
God, as far as necessity allowed or gave consent, has exactly
perfected, and harmonised in due proportion.

  From all that we have just been saying about the elements or
kinds, the most probable conclusion is as follows:-earth, when meeting
with fire and dissolved by its sharpness, whether the dissolution take
place in the fire itself or perhaps in some mass of air or water, is
borne hither and thither, until its parts, meeting together and
mutually harmonising, again become earth; for they can never take
any other form. But water, when divided by fire or by air, on
reforming, may become one part fire and two parts air; and a single
volume of air divided becomes two of fire. Again, when a small body of
fire is contained in a larger body of air or water or earth, and
both are moving, and the fire struggling is overcome and broken up,
then two volumes of fire form one volume of air; and when air is
overcome and cut up into small pieces, two and a half parts of air are
condensed into one part of water. Let us consider the matter in
another way. When one of the other elements is fastened upon by
fire, and is cut by the sharpness of its angles and sides, it
coalesces with the fire, and then ceases to be cut by them any longer.
For no element which is one and the same with itself can be changed by
or change another of the same kind and in the same state. But so
long as in the process of transition the weaker is fighting against
the stronger, the dissolution continues. Again, when a few small
particles, enclosed in many larger ones, are in process of
decomposition and extinction, they only cease from their tendency to
extinction when they consent to pass into the conquering nature, and
fire becomes air and air water. But if bodies of another kind go and
attack them [i.e. the small particles], the latter continue to be
dissolved until, being completely forced back and dispersed, they make
their escape to their own kindred, or else, being overcome and
assimilated to the conquering power, they remain where they are and
dwell with their victors, and from being many become one. And owing to
these affections, all things are changing their place, for by the
motion of the receiving vessel the bulk of each class is distributed
into its proper place; but those things which become unlike themselves
and like other things, are hurried by the shaking into the place of
the things to which they grow like.

  Now all unmixed and primary bodies are produced by such causes as
these. As to the subordinate species which are included in the greater
kinds, they are to be attributed to the varieties in the structure
of the two original triangles. For either structure did not originally
produce the triangle of one size only, but some larger and some
smaller, and there are as many sizes as there are species of the
four elements. Hence when they are mingled with themselves and with
one another there is an endless variety of them, which those who would
arrive at the probable truth of nature ought duly to consider.

  Unless a person comes to an understanding about the nature and
conditions of rest and motion, he will meet with many difficulties
in the discussion which follows. Something has been said of this
matter already, and something more remains to be said, which is,
that motion never exists in what is uniform. For to conceive that
anything can be moved without a mover is hard or indeed impossible,
and equally impossible to conceive that there can be a mover unless
there be something which can be moved-motion cannot exist where either
of these are wanting, and for these to be uniform is impossible;
wherefore we must assign rest to uniformity and motion to the want
of uniformity. Now inequality is the cause of the nature which is
wanting in uniformity; and of this we have already described the
origin. But there still remains the further point-why things when
divided after their kinds do not cease to pass through one another and
to change their place-which we will now proceed to explain. In the
revolution of the universe are comprehended all the four elements, and
this being circular and having a tendency to come together, compresses
everything and will not allow any place to be left void. Wherefore,
also, fire above all things penetrates everywhere, and air next, as
being next in rarity of the elements; and the two other elements in
like manner penetrate according to their degrees of rarity. For
those things which are composed of the largest particles have the
largest void left in their compositions, and those which are
composed of the smallest particles have the least. And the contraction
caused by the compression thrusts the smaller particles into the
interstices of the larger. And thus, when the small parts are placed
side by side with the larger, and the lesser divide the greater and
the greater unite the lesser, all the elements are borne up and down
and hither and thither towards their own places; for the change in the
size of each changes its position in space. And these causes
generate an inequality which is always maintained, and is
continually creating a perpetual motion of the elements in all time.

  In the next place we have to consider that there are divers kinds of
fire. There are, for example, first, flame; and secondly, those
emanations of flame which do not burn but only give light to the eyes;
thirdly, the remains of fire, which are seen in red-hot embers after
the flame has been extinguished. There are similar differences in
the air; of which the brightest part is called the aether, and the
most turbid sort mist and darkness; and there are various other
nameless kinds which arise from the inequality of the triangles.
Water, again, admits in the first place of a division into two
kinds; the one liquid and the other fusile. The liquid kind is
composed of the small and unequal particles of water; and moves itself
and is moved by other bodies owing to the want of uniformity and the
shape of its particles; whereas the fusile kind, being formed of large
and uniform particles, is more stable than the other, and is heavy and
compact by reason of its uniformity. But when fire gets in and
dissolves the particles and destroys the uniformity, it has greater
mobility, and becoming fluid is thrust forth by the neighbouring air
and spreads upon the earth; and this dissolution of the solid masses
is called melting, and their spreading out upon the earth flowing.
Again, when the fire goes out of the fusile substance, it does not
pass into vacuum, but into the neighbouring air; and the air which
is displaced forces together the liquid and still moveable mass into
the place which was occupied by the fire, and unites it with itself.
Thus compressed the mass resumes its equability, and is again at unity
with itself, because the fire which was the author of the inequality
has retreated; and this departure of the fire is called cooling, and
the coming together which follows upon it is termed congealment. Of
all the kinds termed fusile, that which is the densest and is formed
out of the finest and most uniform parts is that most precious
possession called gold, which is hardened by filtration through
rock; this is unique in kind, and has both a glittering and a yellow
colour. A shoot of gold, which is so dense as to be very hard, and
takes a black colour, is termed adamant. There is also another kind
which has parts nearly like gold, and of which there are several
species; it is denser than gold, and it contains a small and fine
portion of earth, and is therefore harder, yet also lighter because of
the great interstices which it has within itself; and this
substance, which is one of the bright and denser kinds of water,
when solidified is called copper. There is an alloy of earth mingled
with it, which, when the two parts grow old and are disunited, shows
itself separately and is called rust. The remaining phenomena of the
same kind there will be no difficulty in reasoning out by the method
of probabilities. A man may sometimes set aside meditations about
eternal things, and for recreation turn to consider the truths of
generation which are probable only; he will thus gain a pleasure not
to be repented of, and secure for himself while he lives a wise and
moderate pastime. Let us grant ourselves this indulgence, and go
through the probabilities relating to the same subjects which follow
next in order.

  Water which is mingled with fire, so much as is fine and liquid
(being so called by reason of its motion and the way in which it rolls
along the ground), and soft, because its bases give way are less
stable than those of earth, when separated from fire and air and
isolated, becomes more uniform, and by their retirement is
compressed into itself; and if the condensation be very great, the
water above the earth becomes hail, but on the earth, ice; and that
which is congealed in a less degree and is only half solid, when above
the earth is called snow, and when upon the earth, and condensed
from dew, hoarfrost. Then, again, there are the numerous kinds of
water which have been mingled with one another, and are distilled
through plants which grow in the earth; and this whole class is called
by the name of juices or saps. The unequal admixture of these fluids
creates a variety of species; most of them are nameless, but four
which are of a fiery nature are clearly distinguished and have
names. First there is wine, which warms the soul as well as the
body: secondly, there is the oily nature, which is smooth and
divides the visual ray, and for this reason is bright and shining
and of a glistening appearance, including pitch, the juice of the
castor berry, oil itself, and other things of a like kind: thirdly,
there is the class of substances which expand the contracted parts
of the mouth, until they return to their natural state, and by
reason of this property create sweetness;-these are included under the
general name of honey: and, lastly, there is a frothy nature, which
differs from all juices, having a burning quality which dissolves
the flesh; it is called opos (a vegetable acid).

  As to the kinds of earth, that which is filtered through water
passes into stone in the following manner:-The water which mixes
with the earth and is broken up in the process changes into air, and
taking this form mounts into its own place. But as there is no
surrounding vacuum it thrusts away the neighbouring air, and this
being rendered heavy, and, when it is displaced, having been poured
around the mass of earth, forcibly compresses it and drives it into
the vacant space whence the new air had come up; and the earth when
compressed by the air into an indissoluble union with water becomes
rock. The fairer sort is that which is made up of equal and similar
parts and is transparent; that which has the opposite qualities is
inferior. But when all the watery part is suddenly drawn out by
fire, a more brittle substance is formed, to which we give the name of
pottery. Sometimes also moisture may remain, and the earth which has
been fused by fire becomes, when cool, a certain stone of a black
colour. A like separation of the water which had been copiously
mingled with them may occur in two substances composed of finer
particles of earth and of a briny nature; out of either of them a half
solid body is then formed, soluble in water-the one, soda, which is
used for purging away oil and earth, and other, salt, which harmonizes
so well in combinations pleasing to the palate, and is, as the law
testifies, a substance dear to the gods. The compounds of earth and
water are not soluble by water, but by fire only, and for this
reason:-Neither fire nor air melt masses of earth; for their
particles, being smaller than the interstices in its structure, have
plenty of room to move without forcing their way, and so they leave
the earth unmelted and undissolved; but particles of water, which
are larger, force a passage, and dissolve and melt the earth.
Wherefore earth when not consolidated by force is dissolved by water
only; when consolidated, by nothing but fire; for this is the only
body which can find an entrance. The cohesion of water again, when
very strong, is dissolved by fire only-when weaker, then either by air
or fire-the former entering the interstices, and the latter
penetrating even the triangles. But nothing can dissolve air, when
strongly condensed, which does not reach the elements or triangles; or
if not strongly condensed, then only fire can dissolve it. As to
bodies composed of earth and water, while the water occupies the
vacant interstices of the earth in them which are compressed by force,
the particles of water which approach them from without, finding no
entrance, flow around the entire mass and leave it undissolved; but
the particles of fire, entering into the interstices of the water,
do to the water what water does to earth and fire to air, and are
the sole causes of the compound body of earth and water liquefying and
becoming fluid. Now these bodies are of two kinds; some of them,
such as glass and the fusible sort of stones, have less water than
they have earth; on the other hand, substances of the nature of wax
and incense have more of water entering into their composition.

  I have thus shown the various classes of bodies as they are
diversified by their forms and combinations and changes into one
another, and now I must endeavour to set forth their affections and
the causes of them. In the first place, the bodies which I have been
describing are necessarily objects of sense. But we have not yet
considered the origin of flesh, or what belongs to flesh, or of that
part of the soul which is mortal. And these things cannot be
adequately explained without also explaining the affections which
are concerned with sensation, nor the latter without the former: and
yet to explain them together is hardly possible; for which reason we
must assume first one or the other and afterwards examine the nature
of our hypothesis. In order, then, that the affections may follow
regularly after the elements, let us presuppose the existence of
body and soul.

  First, let us enquire what we mean by saying that fire is hot; and
about this we may reason from the dividing or cutting power which it
exercises on our bodies. We all of us feel that fire is sharp; and
we may further consider the fineness of the sides, and the sharpness
of the angles, and the smallness of the particles, and the swiftness
of the motion-all this makes the action of fire violent and sharp,
so that it cuts whatever it meets. And we must not forget that the
original figure of fire [i.e. the pyramid], more than any other
form, has a dividing power which cuts our bodies into small pieces
(Kepmatizei), and thus naturally produces that affection which we call
heat; and hence the origin of the name (thepmos, Kepma). Now, the
opposite of this is sufficiently manifest; nevertheless we will not
fail to describe it. For the larger particles of moisture which
surround the body, entering in and driving out the lesser, but not
being able to take their places, compress the moist principle in us;
and this from being unequal and disturbed, is forced by them into a
state of rest, which is due to equability and compression. But
things which are contracted contrary to nature are by nature at war,
and force themselves apart; and to this war and convulsion the name of
shivering and trembling is given; and the whole affection and the
cause of the affection are both termed cold. That is called hard to
which our flesh yields, and soft which yields to our flesh; and things
are also termed hard and soft relatively to one another. That which
yields has a small base; but that which rests on quadrangular bases is
firmly posed and belongs to the class which offers the greatest
resistance; so too does that which is the most compact and therefore
most repellent. The nature of the light and the heavy will be best
understood when examined in connexion with our notions of above and
below; for it is quite a mistake to suppose that the universe is
parted into two regions, separate from and opposite to each other, the
one a lower to which all things tend which have any bulk, and an upper
to which things only ascend against their will. For as the universe is
in the form of a sphere, all the extremities, being equidistant from
the centre, are equally extremities, and the centre, which is
equidistant from them, is equally to be regarded as the opposite of
them all. Such being the nature of the world, when a person says
that any of these points is above or below, may he not be justly
charged with using an improper expression? For the centre of the world
cannot be rightly called either above or below, but is the centre
and nothing else; and the circumference is not the centre, and has
in no one part of itself a different relation to the centre from
what it has in any of the opposite parts. Indeed, when it is in
every direction similar, how can one rightly give to it names which
imply opposition? For if there were any solid body in equipoise at the
centre of the universe, there would be nothing to draw it to this
extreme rather than to that, for they are all perfectly similar; and
if a person were to go round the world in a circle, he would often,
when standing at the antipodes of his former position, speak of the
same point as above and below; for, as I was saying just now, to speak
of the whole which is in the form of a globe as having one part
above and another below is not like a sensible man.

  The reason why these names are used, and the circumstances under
which they are ordinarily applied by us to the division of the
heavens, may be elucidated by the following supposition:-if a person
were to stand in that part of the universe which is the appointed
place of fire, and where there is the great mass of fire to which
fiery bodies gather-if, I say, he were to ascend thither, and,
having the power to do this, were to abstract particles of fire and
put them in scales and weigh them, and then, raising the balance, were
to draw the fire by force towards the uncongenial element of the
air, it would be very evident that he could compel the smaller mass
more readily than the larger; for when two things are simultaneously
raised by one and the same power, the smaller body must necessarily
yield to the superior power with less reluctance than the larger;
and the larger body is called heavy and said to tend downwards, and
the smaller body is called light and said to tend upwards. And we
may detect ourselves who are upon the earth doing precisely the same
thing. For we of separate earthy natures, and sometimes earth
itself, and draw them into the uncongenial element of air by force and
contrary to nature, both clinging to their kindred elements. But
that which is smaller yields to the impulse given by us towards the
dissimilar element more easily than the larger; and so we call the
former light, and the place towards which it is impelled we call
above, and the contrary state and place we call heavy and below
respectively. Now the relations of these must necessarily vary,
because the principal masses of the different elements hold opposite
positions; for that which is light, heavy, below or above in one place
will be found to be and become contrary and transverse and every way
diverse in relation to that which is light, heavy, below or above in
an opposite place. And about all of them this has to be
considered:-that the tendency of each towards its kindred element
makes the body which is moved heavy, and the place towards which the
motion tends below, but things which have an opposite tendency we call
by an opposite name. Such are the causes which we assign to these
phenomena. As to the smooth and the rough, any one who sees them can
explain the reason of them to another. For roughness is hardness
mingled with irregularity, and smoothness is produced by the joint
effect of uniformity and density.

  The most important of the affections which concern the whole body
remains to be considered-that is, the cause of pleasure and pain in
the perceptions of which I have been speaking, and in all other things
which are perceived by sense through the parts of the body, and have
both pains and pleasures attendant on them. Let us imagine the
causes of every affection, whether of sense or not, to be of the
following nature, remembering that we have already distinguished
between the nature which is easy and which is hard to move; for this
is the direction in which we must hunt the prey which we mean to take.
A body which is of a nature to be easily moved, on receiving an
impression however slight, spreads abroad the motion in a circle,
the parts communicating with each other, until at last, reaching the
principle of mind, they announce the quality of the agent. But a
body of the opposite kind, being immobile, and not extending to the
surrounding region, merely receives the impression, and does not
stir any of the neighbouring parts; and since the parts do not
distribute the original impression to other parts, it has no effect of
motion on the whole animal, and therefore produces no effect on the
patient. This is true of the bones and hair and other more earthy
parts of the human body; whereas what was said above relates mainly to
sight and hearing, because they have in them the greatest amount of
fire and air. Now we must conceive of pleasure and pain in this way.
An impression produced in us contrary to nature and violent, if
sudden, is painful; and, again, the sudden return to nature is
pleasant; but a gentle and gradual return is imperceptible and vice
versa. On the other hand the impression of sense which is most
easily produced is most readily felt, but is not accompanied by
Pleasure or pain; such, for example, are the affections of the
sight, which, as we said above, is a body naturally uniting with our
body in the day-time; for cuttings and burnings and other
affections which happen to the sight do not give pain, nor is there
pleasure when the sight returns to its natural state; but the
sensations are dearest and strongest according to the manner in
which the eye is affected by the object, and itself strikes and
touches it; there is no violence either in the contraction or dilation
of the eye. But bodies formed of larger particles yield to the agent
only with a struggle; and then they impart their motions to the
whole and cause pleasure and pain-pain when alienated from their
natural conditions, and pleasure when restored to them. Things which
experience gradual withdrawings and emptyings of their nature, and
great and sudden replenishments, fail to perceive the emptying, but
are sensible of the replenishment; and so they occasion no pain, but
the greatest pleasure, to the mortal part of the soul, as is
manifest in the case of perfumes. But things which are changed all of
a sudden, and only gradually and with difficulty return to their own
nature, have effects in every way opposite to the former, as is
evident in the case of burnings and cuttings of the body.

  Thus have we discussed the general affections of the whole body, and
the names of the agents which produce them. And now I will endeavour
to speak of the affections of particular parts, and the causes and
agents of them, as far as I am able. In the first place let us set
forth what was omitted when we were speaking of juices, concerning the
affections peculiar to the tongue. These too, like most of the other
affections, appear to be caused by certain contractions and dilations,
but they have besides more of roughness and smoothness than is found
in other affections; for whenever earthy particles enter into the
small veins which are the testing of the tongue, reaching to the
heart, and fall upon the moist, delicate portions of flesh-when, as
they are dissolved, they contract and dry up the little veins, they
are astringent if they are rougher, but if not so rough, then only
harsh. Those of them which are of an abstergent nature, and purge
the whole surface of the tongue, if they do it in excess, and so
encroach as to consume some part of the flesh itself, like potash
and soda, are all termed bitter. But the particles which are deficient
in the alkaline quality, and which cleanse only moderately, are called
salt, and having no bitterness or roughness, are regarded as rather
agreeable than otherwise. Bodies which share in and are made smooth by
the heat of the mouth, and which are inflamed, and again in turn
inflame that which heats them, and which are so light that they are
carried upwards to the sensations of the head, and cut all that
comes in their way, by reason of these qualities in them, are all
termed pungent. But when these same particles, refined by
putrefaction, enter into the narrow veins, and are duly proportioned
to the particles of earth and air which are there, they set them
whirling about one another, and while they are in a whirl cause them
to dash against and enter into one another, and so form hollows
surrounding the particles that enter-which watery vessels of air
(for a film of moisture, sometimes earthy, sometimes pure, is spread
around the air) are hollow spheres of water; and those of them which
are pure, are transparent, and are called bubbles, while those
composed of the earthy liquid, which is in a state of general
agitation and effervescence, are said to boil or ferment-of all
these affections the cause is termed acid. And there is the opposite
affection arising from an opposite cause, when the mass of entering
particles, immersed in the moisture of the mouth, is congenial to
the tongue, and smooths and oils over the roughness, and relaxes the
parts which are unnaturally contracted, and contracts the parts
which are relaxed, and disposes them all according to their
nature-that sort of remedy of violent affections is pleasant and
agreeable to every man, and has the name sweet. But enough of this.

  The faculty of smell does not admit of differences of kind; for
all smells are of a half formed nature, and no element is so
proportioned as to have any smell. The veins about the nose are too
narrow to admit earth and water, and too wide to detain fire and
air; and for this reason no one ever perceives the smell of any of
them; but smells always proceed from bodies that are damp, or
putrefying, or liquefying, or evaporating, and are perceptible only in
the intermediate state, when water is changing into air and air into
water; and all of them are either vapor or mist. That which is passing
out of air into water is mist, and that which is passing from water
into air is vapour; and hence all smells are thinner than water and
thicker than air. The proof of this is, that when there is any
obstruction to the respiration, and a man draws in his breath by
force, then no smell filters through, but the air without the smell
alone penetrates. Wherefore the varieties of smell have no name, and
they have not many, or definite and simple kinds; but they are
distinguished only painful and pleasant, the one sort irritating and
disturbing the whole cavity which is situated between the head and the
navel, the other having a soothing influence, and restoring this
same region to an agreeable and natural condition.

  In considering the third kind of sense, hearing, we must speak of
the causes in which it originates. We may in general assume sound to
be a blow which passes through the ears, and is transmitted by means
of the air, the brain, and the blood, to the soul, and that hearing is
the vibration of this blow, which begins in the head and ends in the
region of the liver. The sound which moves swiftly is acute, and the
sound which moves slowly is grave, and that which is regular is
equable and smooth, and the reverse is harsh. A great body of sound is
loud, and a small body of sound the reverse. Respecting the
harmonies of sound I must hereafter speak.

  There is a fourth class of sensible things, having many intricate
varieties, which must now be distinguished. They are called by the
general name of colours, and are a flame which emanates from every
sort of body, and has particles corresponding to the sense of sight. I
have spoken already, in what has preceded, of the causes which
generate sight, and in this place it will be natural and suitable to
give a rational theory of colours.

  Of the particles coming from other bodies which fall upon the sight,
some are smaller and some are larger, and some are equal to the
parts of the sight itself. Those which are equal are imperceptible,
and we call them transparent. The larger produce contraction, the
smaller dilation, in the sight, exercising a power akin to that of hot
and cold bodies on the flesh, or of astringent bodies on the tongue,
or of those heating bodies which we termed pungent. White and black
are similar effects of contraction and dilation in another sphere, and
for this reason have a different appearance. Wherefore, we ought to
term white that which dilates the visual ray, and the opposite of this
is black. There is also a swifter motion of a different sort of fire
which strikes and dilates the ray of sight until it reaches the
eyes, forcing a way through their passages and melting them, and
eliciting from them a union of fire and water which we call tears,
being itself an opposite fire which comes to them from an opposite
direction-the inner fire flashes forth like lightning, and the outer
finds a way in and is extinguished in the moisture, and all sorts of
colours are generated by the mixture. This affection is termed
dazzling, and the object which produces it is called bright and
flashing. There is another sort of fire which is intermediate, and
which reaches and mingles with the moisture of the eye without
flashing; and in this, the fire mingling with the ray of the moisture,
produces a colour like blood, to which we give the name of red. A
bright hue mingled with red and white gives the colour called
auburn. The law of proportion, however, according to which the several
colours are formed, even if a man knew he would be foolish in telling,
for he could not give any necessary reason, nor indeed any tolerable
or probable explanation of them. Again, red, when mingled with black
and white, becomes purple, but it becomes umber when the colours are
burnt as well as mingled and the black is more thoroughly mixed with
them. Flame colour is produced by a union of auburn and dun, and dun
by an admixture of black and white; pale yellow, by an admixture of
white and auburn. White and bright meeting, and falling upon a full
black, become dark blue, and when dark blue mingles with white, a
light blue colour is formed, as flame-colour with black makes leek
green. There will be no difficulty in seeing how and by what
mixtures the colours derived from these are made according to the
rules of probability. He, however, who should attempt to verify all
this by experiment, would forget the difference of the human and
divine nature. For God only has the knowledge and also the power which
are able to combine many things into one and again resolve the one
into many. But no man either is or ever will be able to accomplish
either the one or the other operation.

  These are the elements, thus of necessity then subsisting, which the
creator of the fairest and best of created things associated with
himself, when he made the self-sufficing and most perfect God, using
the necessary causes as his ministers in the accomplishment of his
work, but himself contriving the good in all his creations.
Wherefore we may distinguish two sorts of causes, the one divine and
the other necessary, and may seek for the divine in all things, as far
as our nature admits, with a view to the blessed life; but the
necessary kind only for the sake of the divine, considering that
without them and when isolated from them, these higher things for
which we look cannot be apprehended or received or in any way shared
by us.

  Seeing, then, that we have now prepared for our use the various
classes of causes which are the material out of which the remainder of
our discourse must be woven, just as wood is the material of the
carpenter, let us revert in a few words to the point at which we
began, and then endeavour to add on a suitable ending to the beginning
of our tale.

  As I said at first, when all things were in disorder God created
in each thing in relation to itself, and in all things in relation
to each other, all the measures and harmonies which they could
possibly receive. For in those days nothing had any proportion
except by accident; nor did any of the things which now have names
deserve to be named at all-as, for example, fire, water, and the
rest of the elements. All these the creator first set in order, and
out of them he constructed the universe, which was a single animal
comprehending in itself all other animals, mortal and immortal. Now of
the divine, he himself was the creator, but the creation of the mortal
he committed to his offspring. And they, imitating him, received
from him the immortal principle of the soul; and around this they
proceeded to fashion a mortal body, and. made it to be the vehicle
of the so and constructed within the body a soul of another nature
which was mortal, subject to terrible and irresistible
affections-first of all, pleasure, the greatest incitement to evil;
then, pain, which deters from good; also rashness and fear, two
foolish counsellors, anger hard to be appeased, and hope easily led
astray-these they mingled with irrational sense and with all-daring
love according to necessary laws, and so framed man. Wherefore,
fearing to pollute the divine any more than was absolutely
unavoidable, they gave to the mortal nature a separate habitation in
another part of the body, placing the neck between them to be the
isthmus and boundary, which they constructed between the head and
breast, to keep them apart. And in the breast, and in what is termed
the thorax, they encased the mortal soul; and as the one part of
this was superior and the other inferior they divided the cavity of
the thorax into two parts, as the women's and men's apartments are
divided in houses, and placed the midriff to be a wall of partition
between them. That part of the inferior soul which is endowed with
courage and passion and loves contention they settled nearer the head,
midway between the midriff and the neck, in order that it might be
under the rule of reason and might join with it in controlling and
restraining the desires when they are no longer willing of their own
accord to obey the word of command issuing from the citadel.

  The heart, the knot of the veins and the fountain of the blood which
races through all the limbs was set in the place of guard, that when
the might of passion was roused by reason making proclamation of any
wrong assailing them from without or being perpetrated by the
desires within, quickly the whole power of feeling in the body,
perceiving these commands and threats, might obey and follow through
every turn and alley, and thus allow the principle of the best to have
the command in all of them. But the gods, foreknowing that the
palpitation of the heart in the expectation of danger and the swelling
and excitement of passion was caused by fire, formed and implanted
as a supporter to the heart the lung, which was, in the first place,
soft and bloodless, and also had within hollows like the pores of a
sponge, in order that by receiving the breath and the drink, it
might give coolness and the power of respiration and alleviate the
heat. Wherefore they cut the air-channels leading to the lung, and
placed the lung about the heart as a soft spring, that, when passion
was rife within, the heart, beating against a yielding body, might
be cooled and suffer less, and might thus become more ready to join
with passion in the service of reason.

  The part of the soul which desires meats and drinks and the other
things of which it has need by reason of the bodily nature, they
placed between the midriff and the boundary of the navel, contriving
in all this region a sort of manger for the food of the body; and
there they bound it down like a wild animal which was chained up
with man, and must be nourished if man was to exist. They appointed
this lower creation his place here in order that he might be always
feeding at the manger, and have his dwelling as far as might be from
the council-chamber, making as little noise and disturbance as
possible, and permitting the best part to advise quietly for the
good of the whole. And knowing that this lower principle in man
would not comprehend reason, and even if attaining to some degree of
perception would never naturally care for rational notions, but that
it would be led away by phantoms and visions night and day-to be a
remedy for this, God combined with it the liver, and placed it in
the house of the lower nature, contriving that it should be solid
and smooth, and bright and sweet, and should also have a bitter
quality, in order that the power of thought, which proceeds from the
mind, might be reflected as in a mirror which receives likenesses of
objects and gives back images of them to the sight; and so might
strike terror into the desires, when, making use of the bitter part of
the liver, to which it is akin, it comes threatening and invading, and
diffusing this bitter element swiftly through the whole liver produces
colours like bile, and contracting every part makes it wrinkled and
rough; and twisting out of its right place and contorting the lobe and
closing and shutting up the vessels and gates, causes pain and
loathing. And the converse happens when some gentle inspiration of the
understanding pictures images of an opposite character, and allays the
bile and bitterness by refusing to stir or touch the nature opposed to
itself, but by making use of the natural sweetness of the liver,
corrects all things and makes them to be right and smooth and free,
and renders the portion of the soul which resides about the liver
happy and joyful, enabling it to pass the night in peace, and to
practise divination in sleep, inasmuch as it has no share in mind
and reason. For the authors of our being, remembering the command of
their father when he bade them create the human race as good as they
could, that they might correct our inferior parts and make them to
attain a measure of truth, placed in the liver the seat of divination.
And herein is a proof that God has given the art of divination not
to the wisdom, but to the foolishness of man. No man, when in his
wits, attains prophetic truth and inspiration; but when he receives
the inspired word, either his intelligence is enthralled in sleep,
or he is demented by some distemper or possession. And he who would
understand what he remembers to have been said, whether in a dream
or when he was awake, by the prophetic and inspired nature, or would
determine by reason the meaning of the apparitions which he has
seen, and what indications they afford to this man or that, of past,
present or future good and evil, must first recover his wits. But,
while he continues demented, he cannot judge of the visions which he
sees or the words which he utters; the ancient saying is very true,
that "only a man who has his wits can act or judge about himself and
his own affairs." And for this reason it is customary to appoint
interpreters to be judges of the true inspiration. Some persons call
them prophets; they are quite unaware that they are only the
expositors of dark sayings and visions, and are not to be called
prophets at all, but only interpreters of prophecy.

  Such is the nature of the liver, which is placed as we have
described in order that it may give prophetic intimations. During
the life of each individual these intimations are plainer, but after
his death the liver becomes blind, and delivers oracles too obscure to
be intelligible. The neighbouring organ [the spleen] is situated on
the left-hand side, and is constructed with a view of keeping the
liver bright and pure-like a napkin, always ready prepared and at hand
to clean the mirror. And hence, when any impurities arise in the
region of the liver by reason of disorders of the body, the loose
nature of the spleen, which is composed of a hollow and bloodless
tissue, receives them all and dears them away, and when filled with
the unclean matter, swells and festers, but, again, when the body is
purged, settles down into the same place as before, and is humbled.

  Concerning the soul, as to which part is mortal and which divine,
and how and why they are separated, and where located, if God
acknowledges that we have spoken the truth, then, and then only, can
we be confident; still, we may venture to assert that what has been
said by us is probable, and will be rendered more probable by
investigation. Let us assume thus much.

  The creation of the rest of follows next in order, and this we may
investigate in a similar manner. And it appears to be very meet that
the body should be framed on the following principles:-

  The authors of our race were aware that we should be intemperate
in eating and drinking, and take a good deal more than was necessary
or proper, by reason of gluttony. In order then that disease might not
quickly destroy us, and lest our mortal race should perish without
fulfilling its end-intending to provide against this, the gods made
what is called the lower belly, to be a receptacle for the superfluous
meat and drink, and formed the convolution of the bowels, so that
the food might be prevented from passing quickly through and
compelling the body to require more food, thus producing insatiable
gluttony, and making the whole race an enemy to philosophy and
music, and rebellious against the divinest element within us.

  The bones and flesh, and other similar parts of us, were made as
follows. The first principle of all of them was the generation of
the marrow. For the bonds of life which unite the soul with the body
are made fast there, and they are the root and foundation of the human
race. The marrow itself is created out of other materials: God took
such of the primary triangles as were straight and smooth, and were
adapted by their perfection to produce fire and water, and air and
earth-these, I say, he separated from their kinds, and mingling them
in due proportions with one another, made the marrow out of them to be
a universal seed of the whole race of mankind; and in this seed he
then planted and enclosed the souls, and in the original
distribution gave to the marrow as many and various forms as the
different kinds of souls were hereafter to receive. That which, like a
field, was to receive the divine seed, he made round every way, and
called that portion of the marrow, brain, intending that, when an
animal was perfected, the vessel containing this substance should be
the head; but that which was intended to contain the remaining and
mortal part of the soul he distributed into figures at once around and
elongated, and he called them all by the name "marrow"; and to
these, as to anchors, fastening the bonds of the whole soul, he
proceeded to fashion around them the entire framework of our body,
constructing for the marrow, first of all a complete covering of bone.

  Bone was composed by him in the following manner. Having sifted pure
and smooth earth he kneaded it and wetted it with marrow, and after
that he put it into fire and then into water, and once more into
fire and again into water-in this way by frequent transfers from one
to the other he made it insoluble by either. Out of this he fashioned,
as in a lathe, a globe made of bone, which he placed around the brain,
and in this he left a narrow opening; and around the marrow of the
neck and back he formed vertebrae which he placed under one another
like pivots, beginning at the head and extending through the whole
of the trunk. Thus wishing to preserve the entire seed, he enclosed it
in a stone-like casing, inserting joints, and using in the formation
of them the power of the other or diverse as an intermediate nature,
that they might have motion and flexure. Then again, considering
that the bone would be too brittle and inflexible, and when heated and
again cooled would soon mortify and destroy the seed within-having
this in view, he contrived the sinews and the flesh, that so binding
all the members together by the sinews, which admitted of being
stretched and relaxed about the vertebrae, he might thus make the body
capable of flexion and extension, while the flesh would serve as a
protection against the summer heat and against the winter cold, and
also against falls, softly and easily yielding to external bodies,
like articles made of felt; and containing in itself a warm moisture
which in summer exudes and makes the surface damp, would impart a
nature coolness to the whole body; and again in winter by the help
of this internal warmth would form a very tolerable defence against
the frost which surrounds it and attacks it from without. He who
modelled us, considering these things, mixed earth with fire and water
and blended them; and making a ferment of acid and salt, he mingled it
with them and formed soft and succulent flesh. As for the sinews, he
made them of a mixture of bone and unfermented flesh, attempered so as
to be in a mean, and gave them a yellow colour; wherefore the sinews
have a firmer and more glutinous nature than flesh, but a softer and
moister nature than the bones. With these God covered the bones and
marrow, binding them together by sinews, and then enshrouded them
all in an upper covering of flesh. The more living and sensitive of
the bones he enclosed in the thinnest film of flesh, and those which
had the least life within them in the thickest and most solid flesh.
So again on the joints of the bones, where reason indicated that no
more was required, he placed only a thin covering of flesh, that it
might not interfere with the flexion of our bodies and make them
unwieldy because difficult to move; and also that it might not, by
being crowded and pressed and matted together, destroy sensation by
reason of its hardness, and impair the memory and dull the edge of
intelligence. Wherefore also the thighs and the shanks and the hips,
and the bones of the arms and the forearms, and other parts which have
no joints, and the inner bones, which on account of the rarity of
the soul in the marrow are destitute of reason-all these are
abundantly provided with flesh; but such as have mind in them are in
general less fleshy, except where the creator has made some part
solely of flesh in order to give sensation-as, for example, the
tongue. But commonly this is not the case. For the nature which
comes into being and grows up in us by a law of necessity, does not
admit of the combination of solid bone and much flesh with acute
perceptions. More than any other part the framework of the head
would have had them, if they could have co-existed, and the human
race, having a strong and fleshy and sinewy head, would have had a
life twice or many times as long as it now has, and also more
healthy and free from pain.

  But our creators, considering whether they should make a
longer-lived race which was worse, or a shorter-lived race which was
better, came to the conclusion that every one ought to prefer a
shorter span of life, which was better, to a longer one, which was
worse; and therefore they covered the head with thin bone, but not
with flesh and sinews, since it had no joints; and thus the head was
added, having more wisdom and sensation than the rest of the body, but
also being in every man far weaker. For these reasons and after this
manner God placed the sinews at the extremity of the head, in a circle
round the neck, and glued them together by the principle of likeness
and fastened the extremities of the jawbones to them below the face,
and the other sinews he dispersed throughout the body, fastening
limb to limb. The framers of us framed the mouth, as now arranged,
having teeth and tongue and lips, with a view to the necessary and the
good, contriving the way in for necessary purposes, the way out for
the best purposes; for that is necessary which enters in and gives
food to the body; but the river of speech, which flows out of a man
and ministers to the intelligence, is the fairest and noblest of all
streams. Still the head could neither be left a bare frame of bones,
on account of the extremes of heat and cold in the different
seasons, nor yet be allowed to be wholly covered, and so become dull
and senseless by reason of an overgrowth of flesh. The fleshy nature
was not therefore wholly dried up, but a large sort of peel was parted
off and remained over, which is now called the skin. This met and grew
by the help of the cerebral moisture, and became the circular
envelopment of the head. And the moisture, rising up under the
sutures, watered and closed in the skin upon the crown, forming a sort
of knot. The diversity of the sutures was caused by the power of the
courses of the soul and of the food, and the more these struggled
against one another the more numerous they became, and fewer if the
struggle were less violent. This skin the divine power pierced all
round with fire, and out of the punctures which were thus made the
moisture issued forth, and the liquid and heat which was pure came
away, and a mixed part which was composed of the same material as
the skin, and had a fineness equal to the punctures, was borne up by
its own impulse and extended far outside the head, but being too
slow to escape, was thrust back by the external air, and rolled up
underneath the skin, where it took root. Thus the hair sprang up in
the skin, being akin to it because it is like threads of leather,
but rendered harder and closer through the pressure of the cold, by
which each hair, while in process of separation from the skin, is
compressed and cooled. Wherefore the creator formed the head hairy,
making use of the causes which I have mentioned, and reflecting also
that instead of flesh the brain needed the hair to be a light covering
or guard, which would give shade in summer and shelter in winter,
and at the same time would not impede our quickness of perception.
From the combination of sinew, skin, and bone, in the structure of the
finger, there arises a triple compound, which, when dried up, takes
the form of one hard skin partaking of all three natures, and was
fabricated by these second causes, but designed by mind which is the
principal cause with an eye to the future. For our creators well
knew that women and other animals would some day be framed out of men,
and they further knew that many animals would require the use of nails
for many purposes; wherefore they fashioned in men at their first
creation the rudiments of nails. For this purpose and for these
reasons they caused skin, hair, and nails to grow at the extremities
of the limbs. And now that all the parts and members of the mortal
animal had come together, since its life of necessity consisted of
fire and breath, and it therefore wasted away by dissolution and
depletion, the gods contrived the following remedy: They mingled a
nature akin to that of man with other forms and perceptions, and
thus created another kind of animal. These are the trees and plants
and seeds which have been improved by cultivation and are now
domesticated among us; anciently there were only the will kinds, which
are older than the cultivated. For everything that partakes of life
may be truly called a living being, and the animal of which we are now
speaking partakes of the third kind of soul, which is said to be
seated between the midriff and the navel, having no part in opinion or
reason or mind, but only in feelings of pleasure and pain and the
desires which accompany them. For this nature is always in a passive
state, revolving in and about itself, repelling the motion from
without and using its own, and accordingly is not endowed by nature
with the power of observing or reflecting on its own concerns.
Wherefore it lives and does not differ from a living being, but is
fixed and rooted in the same spot, having no power of self-motion.

  Now after the superior powers had created all these natures to be
food for us who are of the inferior nature, they cut various
channels through the body as through a garden, that it might be
watered as from a running stream. In the first place, they cut two
hidden channels or veins down the back where the skin and the flesh
join, which answered severally to the right and left side of the body.
These they let down along the backbone, so as to have the marrow of
generation between them, where it was most likely to flourish, and
in order that the stream coming down from above might flow freely to
the other parts, and equalise the irrigation. In the next place,
they divided the veins about the head, and interlacing them, they sent
them in opposite directions; those coming from the right side they
sent to the left of the body, and those from the left they diverted
towards the right, so that they and the skin might together form a
bond which should fasten the head to the body, since the crown of
the head was not encircled by sinews; and also in order that the
sensations from both sides might be distributed over the whole body.
And next, they ordered the water-courses of the body in a manner which
I will describe, and which will be more easily understood if we
begin by admitting that all things which have lesser parts retain
the greater, but the greater cannot retain the lesser. Now of all
natures fire has the smallest parts, and therefore penetrates
through earth and water and air and their compounds, nor can
anything hold it. And a similar principle applies to the human
belly; for when meats and drinks enter it, it holds them, but it
cannot hold air and fire, because the particles of which they
consist are smaller than its own structure.

  These elements, therefore, God employed for the sake of distributing
moisture from the belly into the veins, weaving together network of
fire and air like a weel, having at the entrance two lesser weels;
further he constructed one of these with two openings, and from the
lesser weels he extended cords reaching all round to the extremities
of the network. All the interior of the net he made of fire, but the
lesser weels and their cavity, of air. The network he took and
spread over the newly-formed animal in the following manner:-He let
the lesser weels pass into the mouth; there were two of them, and
one he let down by the air-pipes into the lungs, the other by the side
of the air-pipes into the belly. The former he divided into two
branches, both of which he made to meet at the channels of the nose,
so that when the way through the mouth did not act, the streams of the
mouth as well were replenished through the nose. With the other cavity
(i.e. of the greater weel) he enveloped the hollow parts of the
body, and at one time he made all this to flow into the lesser
weels, quite gently, for they are composed of air, and at another time
he caused the lesser weels to flow back again; and the net he made
to find a way in and out through the pores of the body, and the rays
of fire which are bound fast within followed the passage of the air
either way, never at any time ceasing so long as the mortal being
holds together. This process, as we affirm, the name-giver named
inspiration and expiration. And all this movement, active as well as
passive, takes place in order that the body, being watered and cooled,
may receive nourishment and life; for when the respiration is going in
and out, and the fire, which is fast bound within, follows it, and
ever and anon moving to and fro, enters through the belly and
reaches the meat and drink, it dissolves them, and dividing them
into small portions and guiding them through the passages where it
goes, pumps them as from a fountain into the channels of the veins,
and makes the stream of the veins flow through the body as through a
conduit.

  Let us once more consider the phenomena of respiration, and
enquire into the causes which have made it what it is. They are as
follows:-Seeing that there is no such thing as a vacuum into which any
of those things which are moved can enter, and the breath is carried
from us into the external air, the next point is, as will be dear to
every one, that it does not go into a vacant space, but pushes its
neighbour out of its place, and that which is thrust out in turn
drives out its neighbour; and in this everything of necessity at
last comes round to that place from whence the breath came forth,
and enters in there, and following the breath, fills up the vacant
space; and this goes on like the rotation of a wheel, because there
can be no such thing as a vacuum. Wherefore also the breast and the
lungs, when they emit the breath, are replenished by the air which
surrounds the body and which enters in through the pores of the
flesh and is driven round in a circle; and again, the air which is
sent away and passes out through the body forces the breath inwards
through the passage of the mouth and the nostrils. Now the origin of
this movement may be supposed to be as follows. In the interior of
every animal the hottest part is that which is around the blood and
veins; it is in a manner on internal fountain of fire, which we
compare to the network of a creel, being woven all of fire and
extended through the centre of the body, while the-outer parts are
composed of air. Now we must admit that heat naturally proceeds
outward to its own place and to its kindred element; and as there
are two exits for the heat, the out through the body, and the other
through the mouth and nostrils, when it moves towards the one, it
drives round the air at the other, and that which is driven round
falls into the fire and becomes warm, and that which goes forth is
cooled. But when the heat changes its place, and the particles at
the other exit grow warmer, the hotter air inclining in that direction
and carried towards its native element, fire, pushes round the air
at the other; and this being affected in the same way and
communicating the same impulse, a circular motion swaying to and
from is produced by the double process, which we call inspiration
and expiration.

  The phenomena of medical cupping-glasses and of the swallowing of
drink and of the projection of bodies, whether discharged in the air
or bowled along the ground, are to be investigated on a similar
principle; and swift and slow sounds, which appear to be high and low,
and are sometimes discordant on account of their inequality, and
then again harmonical on account of the equality of the motion which
they excite in us. For when the motions of the antecedent swifter
sounds begin to pause and the two are equalised, the slower sounds
overtake the swifter and then propel them. When they overtake them
they do not intrude a new and discordant motion, but introduce the
beginnings of a slower, which answers to the swifter as it dies
away, thus producing a single mixed expression out of high and low,
whence arises a pleasure which even the unwise feel, and which to
the wise becomes a higher sort of delight, being an imitation of
divine harmony in mortal motions. Moreover, as to the flowing of
water, the fall of the thunderbolt, and the marvels that are
observed about the attraction of amber and the Heraclean stones,-in
none of these cases is there any attraction; but he who investigates
rightly, will find that such wonderful phenomena are attributable to
the combination of certain conditions-the non-existence of a vacuum,
the fact that objects push one another round, and that they change
places, passing severally into their proper positions as they are
divided or combined

  Such as we have seen, is the nature and such are the causes of
respiration-the subject in which this discussion originated. For the
fire cuts the food and following the breath surges up within, fire and
breath rising together and filling the veins by drawing up out of
the belly and pouring into them the cut portions of the food; and so
the streams of food are kept flowing through the whole body in all
animals. And fresh cuttings from kindred substances, whether the
fruits of the earth or herb of the field, which God planted to be
our daily food, acquire all sorts of colours by their inter-mixture;
but red is the most pervading of them, being created by the cutting
action of fire and by the impression which it makes on a moist
substance; and hence the liquid which circulates in the body has a
colour such as we have described. The liquid itself we call blood,
which nourishes the flesh and the whole body, whence all parts are
watered and empty places filled.

  Now the process of repletion and evacuation is effected after the
manner of the universal motion by which all kindred substances are
drawn towards one another. For the external elements which surround us
are always causing us to consume away, and distributing and sending
off like to like; the particles of blood, too, which are divided and
contained within the frame of the animal as in a sort of heaven, are
compelled to imitate the motion of the universe. Each, therefore, of
the divided parts within us, being carried to its kindred nature,
replenishes the void. When more is taken away than flows in, then we
decay, and when less, we grow and increase.

  The frame of the entire creature when young has the triangles of
each kind new, and may be compared to the keel of a vessel which is
just off the stocks; they are locked firmly together and yet the whole
mass is soft and delicate, being freshly formed of marrow and nurtured
on milk. Now when the triangles out of which meats and drinks are
composed come in from without, and are comprehended in the body, being
older and weaker than the triangles already there, the frame of the
body gets the better of them and its newer triangles cut them up,
and so the animal grows great, being nourished by a multitude of
similar particles. But when the roots of the triangles are loosened by
having undergone many conflicts with many things in the course of
time, they are no longer able to cut or assimilate the food which
enters, but are themselves easily divided by the bodies which come
in from without. In this way every animal is overcome and decays,
and this affection is called old age. And at last, when the bonds by
which the triangles of the marrow are united no longer hold, and are
parted by the strain of existence, they in turn loosen the bonds of
the soul, and she, obtaining a natural release, flies away with joy.
For that which takes place according to nature is pleasant, but that
which is contrary to nature is painful. And thus death, if caused by
disease or produced by wounds, is painful and violent; but that sort
of death which comes with old age and fulfils the debt of nature is
the easiest of deaths, and is accompanied with pleasure rather than
with pain.

  Now every one can see whence diseases arise. There are four
natures out of which the body is compacted, earth and fire and water
and air, and the unnatural excess or defect of these, or the change of
any of them from its own natural place into another, or-since there
are more kinds than one of fire and of the other elements-the
assumption by any of these of a wrong kind, or any similar
irregularity, produces disorders and diseases; for when any of them is
produced or changed in a manner contrary to nature, the parts which
were previously cool grow warm, and those which were dry become moist,
and the light become heavy, and the heavy light; all sorts of
changes occur. For, as we affirm, a thing can only remain the same
with itself, whole and sound, when the same is added to it, or
subtracted from it, in the same respect and in the same manner and
in due proportion; and whatever comes or goes away in violation of
these laws causes all manner of changes and infinite diseases and
corruptions. Now there is a second class of structures which are
also natural, and this affords a second opportunity of observing
diseases to him who would understand them. For whereas marrow and bone
and flesh and sinews are composed of the four elements, and the blood,
though after another manner, is likewise formed out of them, most
diseases originate in the way which I have described; but the worst of
all owe their severity to the fact that the generation of these
substances stances in a wrong order; they are then destroyed. For
the natural order is that the flesh and sinews should be made of
blood, the sinews out of the fibres to which they are akin, and the
flesh out of the dots which are formed when the fibres are
separated. And the glutinous and rich matter which comes away from the
sinews and the flesh, not only glues the flesh to the bones, but
nourishes and imparts growth to the bone which surrounds the marrow;
and by reason of the solidity of the bones, that which filters through
consists of the purest and smoothest and oiliest sort of triangles,
dropping like dew from the bones and watering the marrow.

  Now when each process takes place in this order, health commonly
results; when in the opposite order, disease. For when the flesh
becomes decomposed and sends back the wasting substance into the
veins, then an over-supply of blood of diverse kinds, mingling with
air in the veins, having variegated colours and bitter properties,
as well as acid and saline qualities, contains all sorts of bile and
serum and phlegm. For all things go the wrong way, and having become
corrupted, first they taint the blood itself, and then ceasing to give
nourishment the body they are carried along the veins in all
directions, no longer preserving the order of their natural courses,
but at war with themselves, because they receive no good from one
another, and are hostile to the abiding constitution of the body,
which they corrupt and dissolve. The oldest part of the flesh which is
corrupted, being hard to decompose, from long burning grows black, and
from being everywhere corroded becomes bitter, and is injurious to
every part of the body which is still uncorrupted. Sometimes, when the
bitter element is refined away, the black part assumes an acidity
which takes the place of the bitterness; at other times the bitterness
being tinged with blood has a redder colour; and this, when mixed with
black, takes the hue of grass; and again, an auburn colour mingles
with the bitter matter when new flesh is decomposed by the fire
which surrounds the internal flame-to all which symptoms some
physician perhaps, or rather some philosopher, who had the power of
seeing in many dissimilar things one nature deserving of a name, has
assigned the common name of bile. But the other kinds of bile are
variously distinguished by their colours. As for serum, that sort
which is the watery part of blood is innocent, but that which is a
secretion of black and acid bile is malignant when mingled by the
power of heat with any salt substance, and is then called acid phlegm.

 Again, the substance which is formed by the liquefaction of new and
tender flesh when air is present, if inflated and encased in liquid so
as to form bubbles, which separately are invisible owing to their
small size, but when collected are of a bulk which is visible, and
have a white colour arising out of the generation of foam-all this
decomposition of tender flesh when inter-mingled with air is termed by
us white phlegm. And the whey or sediment of newly-formed phlegm is
sweat and tears, and includes the various daily discharges by which
the body is purified. Now all these become causes of disease when
the blood is not replenished in a natural manner by food and drink but
gains bulk from opposite sources in violation of the laws of nature.
When the several parts of the flesh are separated by disease, if the
foundation remains, the power of the disorder is only half as great,
and there is still a prospect of an easy recovery; but when that which
binds the flesh to the bones is diseased, and no longer being
separated from the muscles and sinews, ceases to give nourishment to
the bone and to unite flesh and bone, and from being oily and smooth
and glutinous becomes rough and salt and dry, owing to bad regimen,
then all the substance thus corrupted crumbles away under the flesh
and the sinews, and separates from the bone, and the fleshy parts fall
away from their foundation and leave the sinews bare and full of
brine, and the flesh again gets into the circulation of the blood
and makes the previously-mentioned disorders still greater. And if
these bodily affections be severe, still worse are the prior
disorders; as when the bone itself, by reason of the density of the
flesh, does not obtain sufficient air, but becomes mouldy and hot
and gangrened and receives no nutriment, and the natural process is
inverted, and the bone crumbling passes into the food, and the food
into the flesh, and the flesh again falling into the blood makes all
maladies that may occur more virulent than those already mentioned.
But the worst case of all is when the marrow is diseased, either
from excess or defect; and this is the cause of the very greatest
and most fatal disorders, in which the whole course of the body is
reversed.

  There is a third class of diseases which may be conceived of as
arising in three ways; for they are produced sometimes by wind, and
sometimes by phlegm, and sometimes by bile. When the lung, which is
the dispenser of the air to the body, is obstructed by rheums and
its passages are not free, some of them not acting, while through
others too much air enters, then the parts which are unrefreshed by
air corrode, while in other parts the excess of air forcing its way
through the veins distorts them and decomposing the body is enclosed
in the midst of it and occupies the midriff thus numberless painful
diseases are produced, accompanied by copious sweats. And oftentimes
when the flesh is dissolved in the body, wind, generated within and
unable to escape, is the source of quite as much pain as the air
coming in from without; but the greatest pain is felt when the wind
gets about the sinews and the veins of the shoulders, and swells
them up, so twists back the great tendons and the sinews which are
connected with them. These disorders are called tetanus and
op