1

I cannot find in sources of Empedocles the actual relations between all of the 4 elements. He stated that everything is in some relation to each other as being in love (i.e. positive, attracting) or strife (negative, repulsing).

The question is: how each of 4 elements (fire, water, earth, air) were related to each other according to Empedocles - i.e. which were in love and which in strife to each other?

I know some diagram, perhaps referring to Plato's works, where fire is opposed by water, and earth by air, all together placed within a square, but that's all. I'd like to know the exact relation between all of them.

Joseph Weissman
  • 9,590
  • 8
  • 47
  • 86
forsberg
  • 119
  • 5

3 Answers3

1

(If your focus is directly on Empedocles, pardon the disconnect.)

There are three different ways the elements can be opposed to one another, and Western esoteric traditions have used all three of them to good effect. Different perspectives arise from different contrasts between the behaviors of the elemental ideas.

Hermes Tresmigistus is said to have that name because his discipline involved three focal traditions: Alchemy, Astronomy and 'Theurgy'. Each of these is invested in a different pattern of pairing the elements.

In traditional Alchemy, the two oppositions respect motivation and stability as aspects of work. Fire (exciting) opposes Water (calming) and Earth (solid) opposes Air (adaptive).

In Astrology, the two oppositions respect seasonal contrasts. Fire (hot, Summer) opposes Air (cold, Winter), Earth (solid, Autumn) opposes Water (fluid, Spring).

In most other Hermetic domains (including what has evolved into modern Witchcraft, Ceremonial Magic, and Jungian psychology), the two oppositions respect traditional interpersonal conflicts. Fire (passion/intuition) opposes Earth (stability/sensation), Water (merger/feeling) opposes Air (separation/thinking).

One way of looking at all the patterns is on the points of a tetrahedron. Then each point of the tetrahedron can be seen as representing one of the elements. Looking onto the figure from the point of view of the different edges shows each of these potential patterns, depending on the edge. Looking at the triangles surrounding each point calls out the Cardinal, Fixed and Mutable concepts associated with using that element as a model.

(I am not sure how much of any of this is philosophy. But it presents interesting seeds for meditations on how sets of ideas fit together.)

  • Very good and exhausting answer, some of this I read before, but there is also some of that I was thinking before but had no knowledge, e.g. correspondences with the seasons. BTW do you know any resource or a website with more on this subject? Where did you get this tetrahedron reference, I didn't hear about it yet? I think astrology is quite specific and might be not as universal as other disciplines, particularly in the elements subject. Thanks a lot. – forsberg Jan 19 '16 at 16:03
  • The tetrahedron model is my own, but it is just a compact mathematical distillation that encodes the other facts stated here. I might have references, let me check. –  Jan 20 '16 at 15:56
  • I can see that you're really into these things. Do you share some of your thoughts somewhere on the web? – forsberg Jan 22 '16 at 08:00
  • I studied this kind of thing in the 90's, before really discovering the web, so no... That is why I have not gotten back to you about my sources. They are off in storage. –  Jan 22 '16 at 19:07
  • Primarily they are related to Jung's notion of Hermetics and Magick as a compendium of projective images in the Collective Unconscious. The Witchcraft side of it I do remember was from Vivianne Crowley. The Alchemy side was from Jung's Alchemy and Psychology. The Astrological side was from a study of Giordano Bruno and John Dee. –  Jan 22 '16 at 19:23
  • In the late 90's I started studies too. However, it was very recently, in say 6 last years, I came back to the subject after suggestions from my dreams. I'm working on making a step further with this studies than what is commonly known at the moment, than just "making a system" (magical, alchemical, whatever else). As far as I saw, many people abandoned the subject because of no direct relation to their lives, or because of being purely theoretical. From my studies so far, I think the original relations come from the system opposing Fire against the Water. Anyway, thank you. – forsberg Jan 24 '16 at 13:09
  • These are deep tools, and we do not have an area of psychology or even philology that really works with them, even though other subjects have discarded them. The are relegated to the 'fluffy folks' who just want to avoid criticism. I really do find these concepts very central to my discernment, and I wish you luck. I still find uses for modal, elemental, planetary, trump, sephirotic and even enneagram references when I need to pull concepts apart or find subtle discernments. I wish there was still a subject that took such things seriously. But they are no longer philosophy. –  Jan 25 '16 at 02:33
1

See Empedocles for an overview :

In fragment 17, apparently speaking of the physical world as a whole, Empedocles states his fundamental thesis about the relation of elements and forces:

A twofold tale I shall tell: at one time it grew to be one alone out of many, at another again it grew apart to be many out of one. Double is the birth of mortal things and double their failing; for one is brought to birth and destroyed by the coming together of all things, the other is nurtured and flies apart as they grow apart again. And these things never cease their continual exchange, now through Love all coming together into one, now again each carried apart by the hatred of Strife. So insofar as it has learned to grow one from many, and again as the one grows apart [there] grow many, thus far do they come into being and have no stable life; but insofar as they never cease their continual interchange, thus far they exist always changeless in the cycle. (B17.1–13) [translation modified]

[...] While all commentators take this passage as fundamental, their interpretations vary, sometimes widely. In the traditional sort of interpretation this passage tells about a two-part symmetrical cosmic cycle, which endlessly repeats itself. We can trace the history of one cycle, beginning with the point at which all the elements are united, completely intermingled and motionless under the total domination of Love. Then Strife enters and begins to separate the elements out, until finally all the elements are completely separated into distinct, self-contained masses of fire, air, earth and water.

Compare with John Burnet's translation :

(17) I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At one time it grew to be one only out of many; at another, it divided up to be many instead of one. There is a double becoming of perishable things and a double passing away. The coming together of all things brings one generation into being and destroys it; the other grows up and is scattered as things become divided. And these things never cease continually changing places, at one time all uniting in one through Love, at another each borne in different directions by the repulsion of Strife. [...]

As I said before, when I declared the heads of my discourse, I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At one time it grew together to be one only out of many, at another it parted asunder so as to be many instead of one; — Fire and Water and Earth and the mighty height of Air; dread Strife, too, apart from these, of equal weight to each, and Love in their midst, equal in length and breadth.

See also Fragments 21-23: the extant fragments do not give us enough details; the "usual" schema is due mainly to Aristotle.

Community
  • 1
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  • 36,790
  • 3
  • 36
  • 80
1

In On Nature itself, I cannot make out that Empedocles fixes any particular relations between the four elements and two forces.The elements continually "interpenetrate" and they are gathered by "Love" towards a gravitational center and then alternately dispersed by the entropic forces of "Strife."

Since this is a continual recycling and reincarnation through Lava-Lamp convolutions of creative destruction, the elements might tumble into any sort of relations over time.

"At times the solitary One grows out of Many, at times the Many out of One: Water, Fire, Earth, and the steeps of Air. Apart from them: Hate uniformly dense and destructive and among them: Love stretching in every dimension..."

Etc. We only have fragments, of course, and references. So there may be some more explicit "alchemical" ordering in later commentary, Aristotle perhaps. Or earlier, in the Pythagoreans, who influenced Empedocles. But I don't see it in the original, at least not in a straight reading in English translation.

Nelson Alexander
  • 13,532
  • 3
  • 29
  • 53
  • Thanks. It was however common to many ancient traditions that elements were depicted as being in certain relations, hence my question. I think that from what Empedocles wrote (and is translated into English), it's just a matter of interpretation whether elements are gathered together or scattered because of some "outer" forces affecting such behaviour, or because of certain configurations (which was suggested by other philosophers) just of these 4 elements: e.g. water+earth+fire could work together, but water+fire not. – forsberg Jan 19 '16 at 16:10
  • The "order of creation" often starts with earth separating from water, and I think this was in Empedocles. Fire is often the catalyst of any change or flux. But I don't think the elements have any "geometric" quality of being somehow mutually exclusive, hierarchical, or combinatorially restricted, especially in Empedocles where One and Many is really the dominant motif playing out through the interpenetrating elements. Well, hope you get more answers. – Nelson Alexander Jan 19 '16 at 16:28