52. It was this too, no doubt, that led Pythagoras to say all things
were numbers. We shall see that, at a later date, the Pythagoreans
identified these numbers with geometrical figures; but the mere fact
that they called them “numbers,” when taken in connexion with what we
are told about the method of Eurytos, is sufficient to show this was not
the original sense of the doctrine. It is enough to suppose that
Pythagoras reasoned somewhat as follows. If musical sounds can be
reduced to numbers, why should not everything else? There are many
likenesses to number in things, and it may well be that a lucky
experiment, like that by which the octave was discovered, will reveal
their true numerical nature. The Neopythagorean writers, going back in
this as in other matters to the earliest tradition of the school,
indulge their fancy in tracing out analogies between things and numbers
in endless variety; but we are fortunately dispensed from following them
in these vagaries. Aristotle tells us distinctly that the Pythagoreans
explained only a few things by means of numbers,[250] which means that
Pythagoras himself left no developed doctrine on the subject, while the
Pythagoreans of the fifth century did not care to add anything of the
sort to the school tradition. Aristotle does imply, however, that,
according to them the “right time” (καιρός) was seven, justice was four,
and marriage three. These identifications, with a few others like them,
we may safely refer to Pythagoras or his immediate successors; but we
must not attach much importance to them. They are mere sports of the
analogical fancy. If we wish to understand the cosmology of Pythagoras,
we must start, not from them, but from any statements we can find that
present points of contact with the teaching of the Milesian school.
These, we may fairly infer, belong to the system in its most primitive
form.
Footnote 250:
Arist. _Met._ Μ, 4. 1078 b 21 (R. P. 78); Zeller, p. 390, n. 2. The
_Theologumena Arithmetica_, wrongly attributed to Nikomachos of
Gerasa, is full of fanciful doctrine on this subject (R. P. 78 a).
Alexander _in Met._ p. 38, 8, gives a few definitions which may be old
(R. P. 78 c).
[Sidenote: Cosmology.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account