| Abstract [eng] |
Empedocles, a pre-Socratic philosopher from ancient Greece, is a fascinating yet complex figure whose work has given rise to various interpretations and scholarly debates. His contributions span a wide range of fields, including philosophy, cosmology, theology, and ethics, making him a key figure in understanding the confluence of rational and religious thought in ancient Greek philosophy. This work seeks to explore the complex interplay of religious and philosophical elements in Empedocles' fragments, providing insights into how these aspects come together to form a coherent worldview. Empedocles' philosophy, despite its fragmentary state, remains one of the most interesting and complex systems of ancient Greek thought. He stands out not only for his cosmological and physical research, but also for his deep religious and ethical insights. Empedocles theorized the four roots (earth, air, fire, and water) and their interaction through Love (φιλότη) and Void (νεῖκος) that govern the order of the universe. This perspective combines empirical and metaphysical elements, showing that Empedocles' thought includes both scientific and spiritual aspects. In this paper, I will argue the connection between the poems by discerning the religious connections of their fragments and supporting the idea that both ΠΦ and the lines attributed to K arise primarily from E.'s enthusiasm, divine inspiration, and that both the apparently material nature and the living being, the daimon, and their being and fate is described based on religious thinking. For this purpose, we will have to examine what Greek religion is and what place E. occupies in it, what questions and tensions arise between him and other pre-Socratics, primarily the ideas taught in the works of Parmenides and Xenophanes and the poets Hesiod and Homer. What does E. retain from its predecessors and where does its innovativeness manifest itself? Based on the biography of E., can we say that in a certain sense he is a moralist and a preacher, and his works are instructions and sermons not only for Pausanias, but through him and for all people in general? One more question, what if the solution to the (in)compatibility of the poems starts from the wrong starting point? Is it right to accuse E. of irrationality when he himself did not think in such terms? Millerd boldly states that "the vividness of the imagination appealed to E. more than the logical consistency, and it inevitably baffles minds not like his own." The important thing in order to understand it is to stop thinking at the right moment." We can talk about two rationalities of E., about two works that have different genesis, structures, narrative goals, addressees, speaking tone, etc., but which ultimately lead to one goal - from the moral point of view emerging cosmological narrative of ethical teaching. |
