SOPHIE'S WORLD
(Sofies verden), by Jostein Gaarder (JG), translated from Norwegian into American by Paulette Møller (PM)Guestbook | Guestmap | Discussion forum | Inspired by...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
| CH = chapter, P = page, L = line, C = comment, N = Norwegian, T = (alternative) translation, usually closer to the original text, TTR = Two-Tier Reality (metaphysical system bridging East and West) |
||||||||
CHAPTER 4: THE NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS (PP25-35) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| Title: Nothing can come from nothing C: Cosmythologists please note | ||||||||
| P25 L9: to her mother C: Then sentence missing L13: She had to find an excuse T: What was she to say? L16: although it was embarrassing enough T: terribly embarrassing, (cont) for she was hardly old enough to be getting love letters L17: it would be even worse if her mother found out T: if it came out L19: hide-and-seek T: cat-and-mouse L22: Is there a basic substance that everything else (C: else?) is made of? C: A substance is not a thing L24: How can earth and water produce (T: turn into) a live frog? | ||||||||
| P26 L2: Could there be a 'basic substance' that everything was made of? C: No 'else' here (cf. L22) L3: If there was some such substance, how could it suddenly turn into a flower or (T: for that matter) an elephant? T: (suddenly) (be) change(d) into C: Why 'suddenly'? L6: parable C: ?! T: story/account L7: If Jesus really had turned water into wine, it was because it was a miracle T: then it was a miracle L8: something that could not be done normally T: that really could not happen/be done L9: Sophie knew there was a lot of water, not only in wine but in all other growing things T: but almost everywhere in nature L26: without detours around white rabbits C: Hurrah! | ||||||||
| P27 L19: (The Greeks) assumed that 'something' had always existed C: Yes. So much for philosophical and scientific 'progress' L27: How could such transformations occur? T: be possible? L34: there must be a basic substance that was the hidden cause of all changes in nature C: cause? origin/source T: 'hiding behind'/'hidden behind' all changes L37: most interesting part T: aspect | ||||||||
| P28 L3: looking for the underlying (T: eternal) laws of nature C: Modern scientists are still looking, unwilling to accept that these 'laws' are man-made and far from eternal L4: They wanted to understand what was happening around them T: understand natural events L7: explaining ... by telling stories about the gods T: by referring to events in the world of the gods L10: So philosophy gradually liberated itself from religion C: but only partly; philosophy and science are still strongly influenced by religious ideas L15: Aristotle lived two centuries later T: two centuries after the first philosophers L20: T: a basic substance and changes in nature | ||||||||
| P29 L8: It is not so easy to explain (T: say) what Anaximander meant by the boundless C: the Tao? Space? LL12-15: (expanded by translator) Because all ... ordinary as water T: So this basic stuff/substance could not be ordinary water but something boundless/ undefined/indefinite L26: earth, air and fire T: earth, air, fire and water L28: underlying substance T: underlying original substance L31: a single basic substance as the source of all things T: substance which everything (else) is made from L39: Parmenides thought that everything that exists had always existed T: all that exists has always existed C: 'all' in the sense of 'substance', not 'things': things come and go, but a 'substance' may be regarded as eternal | ||||||||
| P30 L1(cont): This idea was not alien to the Greeks T: was normal for L1(cont): They took it more or less for granted that everything (T: all) that existed in the world was everlasting L3(cont): Nothing can come out of nothing, thought Parmenides. And nothing that exists can become nothing T: can cease to exist C: All things can and will cease to exist - as things - but no 'substance' (e.g. matter) can come into existence or cease to exist, although it may be transformed into another chemical or physical state or a form of energy. Parmenides' two principles are basic to rational science, although individual scientists may not always follow them. P30 L4(cont): But Parmenides took the idea further T: went further than most L4(cont): He thought that there was no such thing as actual change T: He held that no real change was possible L5(cont): Nothing could become anything other than it was C: No substance L10: equate T: reconcile L10: When forced to choose between relying either on his senses or his reason, (Parmenides) chose reason C: P. was not logically forced to choose. He was following faulty exclusive-OR logic. Why not rely (more or less) on senses and reason? (inclusive-OR logic) L13: P. believed that our senses give us an incorrect picture of the world ... that does not tally with our reason C: A good reason to doubt 'reason' L17: A rationalist ... believes that (T: in) human reason is the primary source (T: as (a) source) of our knowledge of the world C: So rationalism is a faith (belief) L20: All Things Flow T: All Flows L26: Everything (T: All) flows, said Heraclitus L27: We cannot step twice into the same river C: True or false, depending on interpretation L35: Both good and bad have their inevitable (T: essential) place in the order of things C: There is no 'order of things' except in the human mind | ||||||||
| P31 L15: in the midst of all nature's constant flux (T: within all nature's changes) and opposites, Heraclitus saw an Entity or one-ness (T: a unity or wholeness). This 'something', which was the source of everything, he called God or logos C: Or ultimate reality or the One-and-Indivisible or primary reality (TTR) or the Tao. "In the beginning was the Word" (logos) L23: Should we let reason dictate or should we rely on our senses? C: Why not use both? (inclusive-OR logic) L26: Parmenides says (a) that nothing (C: no substance) can change and (b) that our sensory perceptions must therefore be unreliable C: Irrelevant to our perception/understanding/knowledge of primary reality (TTR) L37: Empedocles found (T: declared) that the cause of the basic disagreement (between Parmenides and Heraclitus) was that (they) had assumed the presence (T: existence) of only one element (T: substance). If this were true, the gap between what reason dictates and what we can see with our own eyes would be unbridgeable C: No; the gap is bridged by TTR | ||||||||
| P32 L8: Empedocles concluded that it was the idea of a single basic substance that had to be rejected C: Rejection unnecessary | ||||||||
| P34 L2: If I loosen (T: remove) a skin cell from my finger, the nucleus will contain not only the (T: formula for the) characteristics of my skin: the same cell will also reveal (T: skin but also) what kind of eyes I have ... and so on L5: Every cell of the human body carries a blueprint of the way (T: contains a detailed description of how) all the other cells are constructed L12: Anaxagoras ... imagined 'order' as a kind of force, creating (T: imagined a kind of 'ordering' force which creates) animals and humans, flowers and trees L19: red-hot stone T: red-hot mass | ||||||||
| P35 L5: Sophie ... tried to use her own common sense and not to think about (T: her own (powers of) reason, without referring to) what she had learned from others L9: (Parmenides) could not accept that 'something' could suddenly transform itself into 'something completely different' C: How about 'gradually'? L15: Empedocles ... proved T: maintained L24: the only way we can accept T: the only reasonable basis for accepting L26: admit (T: posit) the existence L29: common sense T: reason. | ||||||||