Sophie's World - Writing Paragraphs
Natural Philosophers Project:
To find out the origin of everything without resorting to supernatural explanations.
The opening passages of this chapter explains that the Greeks believed that the universe came from something, and this something had always existed. Fundamentally, they believed that there must be a basic substance from which everything was derived and to which everything returned. They were more concerned about how things changed, rather than the origin of this basic substance.
Parmenides argued that even though we see changes and transformation in nature, nature is not actually changing at all, it is always returning to the original substance. Everything is in balance and over time it is effectively static. What we observe is therefore something of an illusion and we can't trust our senses which are deceiving us.
If you think this is crazy and taking things too far, you are in good company as Aristotle thought likewise : 'Athough these opinions appear to follow logically in a dialectical discussion, yet to believe them seems next door to madness when one considers the facts.' (cited in Russell, 1946/96 p74).
Anyway, Heraclitus, a contemporary of Parmenides argued just the opposite. For him everything is in constant flux and we should indeed believe what we see.
It took Empedocles to resolve this. He thought that both were right and both were wrong. For him things do indeed change, they are made of constituent parts in varying proportions that are eternal.
Empodocles thought everthing was composed of differing amounts of the four basic elements of earth, water, air and fire. When something like a flower died for instance it disintgrated into its basic elements.
What concerned Empodocles was how things dissovled and reformed. He considered it was due to the fundamental two forces of love and strife. Love brought things together and strife drove them apart.
Three main points about Natural Philosophers:
1) They developed rudiments of the scientific method.
2) They believed something must be the origin of everything.
3) They believed there must be a basic substance.
_______________________________________________________
Thales: Miletus, date of birth and death unknown unclear, but in 585 BC Thales predicted an eclipse. Water is the basic substance.
Magnets are animate – distinction between living and non-living cf mechanical toys and computers. Everything is full of gods/spirits
_______________________________________________________
Anaximanders: Miletus, but he was reportedly 64 years old in 546 BC, (BR)
Elements (earth, fire &air) were gods and they struggled for dominance – any ‘injustice’ or imbalance was corrected by natural laws (BR)
Basic substance the “boundless” – all things come from and return to (JG)
World is just one of many.
Worlds evolve.
Man descended from fishes.
Life began in moist parts of the earth (JB)
Animals not immutable but determined by their environment (JB p.22)Earth cylinder shaped (BR)
_______________________________________________________
Anaximenes: Miletus, 570-526 BC
Basic substance = air or vapour. Fire is rarefied air.
Earth shaped like a disc
The earth breathes
The soul is air (BR)
_______________________________________________________
Parmenides: Elea S.Italy, 540-480 BC
The One – there are no opposites
Conservation of energy and matter
Observed flux in nature was an illusion
Our senses give an incorrect view of the world – reason is better
Rationalism
Nothing really changed.
_______________________________________________________
Heraclitus: Epheus, 540-480 BC
100+ fragments of texts remain (JB p.58)
Everything flowed
“We cannot step into the same river twice”
World is characterised by opposites – it exists through interplay of opposites
God = logos = reason
God seen in transformations
Universal reason/law that guides everyone and everything
Universal reason is the source of everything
Fire is the basic substance – source of changes
All things changes to fire and once fire is exhausted falls back into things
_____________________________________________________
Empodocles: Sicily c.490-430
Created a synthesis between Heraclitus and Parmenides
Basic substances: earth, air, fire and water. Everything is a mix of these – continual recycling.
We see nature because we have the four elements in our eyes which enable us to recognize them.
Two forces in nature: love and strife. Love binds things, while strife separates things.Earlier creatures different from contemporary ones – and incapable of surviving in contemporary environment. Aristotle thought species were immutable (JB p.22).
_________________________________________________________
Anaxagoras: Asia Minor, 500-428 BC
Nature made up of infinite number of tiny particles
In the smallest parts are fragments of everything else – called “seeds” cf DNA for the whole body in cells
“order” was a force that bound things together = mind or intelligenceAccused of atheism and forced out of Athens
_______________________________________________________
Language in Sophie’s World
Paragraph Structure
Paragraph structure in Sophie's World follows a fairly regular pattern. Each one begins with an introductory sentence, or ‘topic sentence’ that presents the main idea. The middle section elaborates the central idea. The last sentence or ‘concluding sentence’, very succinctly summarizes the main idea and leads onto the next paragraph.
Let's look at three successive paragraphs from the section on Heraclitus entitled 'All Things Flow' pp.34-35. Note that topic sentences are in green and the concluding sentences are in blue.
a)
"Everything flows," said Heraclitus. Everything is in constant flux and movement, nothing is abiding. Therefore we "cannot step twice in the same river." When I step into the river for the second time, neither I nor the river are the same.
b)
Heraclitus pointed out that the world is characterized by opposites. If we were never ill, we would not know what it was to be well. If we never knew hunger , we would not take pleasure in being full. If there were never any war, we would not appreciate peace. And if there were no winter, we would never see the spring.
c)
Both good and bad have their inevitable place in the order of things, Heraclitus believed. Without this constant interplay of opposites the world would cease to exist.
The Topic Sentences
It is said that all you need to do to get a very basic understanding of a text is to read the first sentence of each paragraph. If you read just the green sentences you will quick pick up the three interconnected ideas. For example, from the three sentences we can deduce that everything is moving to and from its opposite state, and that neither one nor the other is better, but forms some kind of unity.
But let's look now at one paragraph in detail to see how it works. Paragraph a) begins:
"Everything flows," said Heraclitus.
What does this mean?
Everything in Nature is flowing or changing. This in itself may not be sufficient to understand, but the author doesn't give much more in the main body sentence than repeat this idea and the famous adage of Heraclitus that we cannot step into the same river twice. It is possible that at this point most of the undertanding comes. It is crystalized when we read the last sentence, which explains the river analogy.
Concluding Sentences
The concluding sentence summarizes the central idea of the analogy of the river. Paragraph a) finishes with the phrase, 'neither I nor the river are the same'. That is, we are different. This idea of 'differences' acts as lead on to the topic of paragraph b) which deals with discussion of Heraclitus' ideas on 'opposites'.
The concluding sentence in paragraph b) is subtle. We feel that it is a conclusion by the fact that it begins with the word 'And...' In this case the example of winter and spring is used to encapsulate all the other examples of opposites. Implicit in this example may be the idea of good and bad and how they are interconnected and somehow interdependent, which is the topic of paragraph c).
The concluding sentence is useful to link paragraphs together but not always present. A concluding sentence may not be necessary if the layout of paragraphs (ideas) is so logical that the text will flow without it. In such a case adding a concluding sentence would make the paragraph a little cumbersome.
Punctuation
We should really say something about the punctuation used in Sophie's World. Notice that in general punctuation is limited to commas (,) and periods or full-stops (.). This keeps sentences short.
Occasionally, the text uses dashes (-), which are informal replacements of semi-colons (;) and colons (:). These formal types of punctuation make sentences and paragraphs long. We will deal with punctuation in a later lesson. For now concentrate on trying to write without them.
The pattern of paragraph structure of 'introduction', 'main idea' and 'summary/conclusion' is very common in modern English expression. It is used in the overall layout of ideas in an oral presentation, an essay, or a report.
The objective is to introduce an idea, elaborate it and then reinforce it. In other words, say what you are going to say, say it, and say what you have said.
The prime objective of writing in academic English is to convey ideas. The ideas in the text are more important that anything else. The style is designed to be as unobtrusive as possible inorder to facilitate understanding.
Writing simply and clearly is not as easy as it sounds. It is a discipline and can take several attempts to perfect it.
Summary
In your writing you should aim for clarity through brevity and simplicity. Paragraphs contain just one central idea. They contain an introductory topic sentence, main idea and concluding sentence. Sentences are short with minimal punctuation.
Exercise 2
Missing letters spell
'Materialist'
A materialist in philosophy is someone who will only acknowledge material causes for the origin of the world and the universe. That is, like the natural philosophers talked about in Sophie's World, they tried to observe and explain nature without the interference of mythology or religion.
As Charles Darwin was also a materialist, this word leads on to coming chapter on evolution.
THE ATOM THEORY
Here I am again, Sophie. Today you are going to hear about the last of the great natural philosophers. His name is Democritus (c.460-370 B.C.) and he was from a little town of Abdera on the northern Aegean coast. If you were able to answer the question about Lego blocks without difficulty, you should have no problem understanding what this philosopher's project was.
M) Democritus agreed with his predecessors that transformations in nature could not be due to the fact that anything actually "changed"*. He therefore assumed that everything was built up of tiny invisible blocks, each of which was eternal and immutable. Democritus called these smallest units atoms.
a) The word "a-toms" means "un-cuttable". For Democritus it was all-important to establish that the constituent parts that everything else was composed of could not to be divided indefinitely into smaller parts. If this were possible, they could not be used as blocks. If atoms could eternally be broken down into ever smaller parts, nature would begin to dissolve like constantly diluted soup.
(The central idea is that constituent parts of everything were indivisible; that is, "uncuttable".)
t) Moreover, nature's blocks had to be eternal - because nothing can come from nothing. In this, he agreed with Parmenides and the Eleatics. Also, he believed that all atoms were firm and solid. But they could not all be the same. If all atoms were identical, there would still be no satisfactory explanation of how they could combine to form everything from poppies and olive trees to goatskin and human hair.
E) Democritus believed that nature consisted of an unlimited number and variety of atoms. Some were round and smooth, others were irregular and jagged. And precisely because they were so different they could join together into all kinds of different bodies. But however infinite they might be in number and shape, they were all eternal, immutable, and indivisible.
(The central idea is that atoms came in all shapes and sizes.)
R) When a body - a tree or an animal, for instance - died and disintegrated, the atoms dispersed and could be used again in new bodies. Atoms moved around in space, but because they had "hooks" and "barbs" they could join together to form all things we see around us.
i) So now you see what I mean about Lego blocks. They have more or less the same properties which Democritus ascribed to atoms. And that is what makes them so much fun to build with. They are first and foremost indivisible. Then they have different shapes and sizes. They are solid and impermeable. They also have "hooks" and "barbs" ** so that they can be connected to form every conceivable figure. These connections can later be broken again so that new figures can be constructed from the same blocks.
(The central idea is that Lego and atoms are analogous.)
A) The fact that they can be used over and over is what has made Lego so popular. Each single Lego block can be part of a truck one day part of a castle the day after. We could say that Lego blocks are eternal. Children of today can play with the same blocks their parents played with when they were little.
L) We can form things out of clay too, but clay cannot be used over and over, because it cannot be broken up into smaller and smaller pieces. These tiny pieces pieces can never be joined together to make something else.
(The central idea is that clay cannot be reused once broken down.)
i) Today we can establish that Democritus' atom theory was more or less correct. Nature really is built up of different "atoms" that join and separate again. A hydrogen atom in a cell at the end of my nose was once part of an elephants trunk. A carbon atom in my cardiac muscle was once in the tail of a dinosaur.
S) In our time, however, scientists have discovered that atoms can be broken down into smaller "elemental particles." We call these elemental particles protons, neutrons and electrons. These will possibly some day be broken into even lesser particles. But physicists agree that somewhere along the line there has to be a limit. There has to be a "minimal part" of which nature consists.
(The central idea is that atoms are indeed reducible to smaller particles.)
T) Democritus did not have access to modern electronic apparatus. His only proper equipment was his mind. But reason left him no real choice. Once it is accepted that nothing can change, that nothing can come out of nothing , and that nothing can ever change, and that nothing is ever lost, then nature must consist of infinitesimal blocks that can join and separate again.
Adapted from Sophie’s World pp 43 – 45
TOPIC SENTENCES
S) In our time, however, scientists have discovered that atoms can be broken down into smaller "elemental particles."
L) We can form things out of clay too, but clay cannot be used over and over, because it cannot be broken up into smaller and smaller pieces
a) The word "a-toms" means "un-cuttable".
E) Democritus believed that nature consisted of an unlimited number and variety of atoms.
i) So now you see what I mean about Lego blocks.
Return to Chapter 1 Sophie's World: Writing Paragraphs
Nature, Art & Language
References:
(JG) Jostein Gaarder, Sophie's World. Berkley Books New York. 1997
(BR) Bertrand Russel, History of Western Philosophy. Routeledge Classics. 1996
© All Copyright, 2007, Ray Genet
