Hello everyone. I’m Handa from the Noosology Research Laboratory. I’ve been wondering what theme to discuss today as the first research video. Since there is no point in going into details from the very beginning, so this time, I would like to talk about what exactly Noosology is in the context of philosophy with a little academic expansion.

As you know, philosophy is said to have originated in ancient Greece. You may also know Thales, who is said to be the founder of the Ionian School of Philosophy. Starting from Thales, his disciple Anaximandros, then Heraclitus, who said that all things are perpetually changing, and Empedocles, who considered the four elements; fire, earth, wind, and water, as the principles of cosmic movements, and so on — it was around the 6th century BCE when an impressive lineup of outstanding philosophers suddenly emerged in Greece. The word “Noos (Nous),” contained in the name “Noosology,” derives from the Greek word coined by Anaxagoras, who also appeared during this period. So, what does the word “Noos” mean? The ancient Greek philosophers called it the origin of all things, “archē.”

I have seriously considered this issue: What was the universe’s beginning? What was its initial principle if there was such a thing as the beginning of the universe? According to Thales, the origin of all things is water. It is well-known, right? Anaximander said that there is no such thing as the origin of nature, but rather, it is infinite. I see Parmenides’ influence here; his famous thought that “What is, is, and what is not, is not “To express this infinity or boundlessness, Anaximander used the word “apeiron.”

In the case of Empedocles, it would be “Fire, Earth, Wind, and Water” or the elements. This “Fire, Earth, Wind, and Water” concept has been incorporated into Western mystical thoughts and has become essential for modern occultism. Thus, those ancient philosophers developed various theories from their own standpoints.

However, among others, Anaxagoras’ saying, ‘the beginning of all things is intelligence,’ is notable. He used the word, Noos, to mean intelligence. Unlike other philosophers, Anaxagoras tried to introduce an ideological principle into nature.

We should also notice that Anaxagoras’ definition of intelligence is slightly different from what we define today. In other words, it is an intelligence that is inherent in nature itself. Interesting, isn’t it? In the notion of the ancient Greeks, it seems like there was no separation between man and nature as we see today.

With this in mind, we can understand why he brought intelligence to the universe’s beginning. For the ancient Greeks, nature should have been such an entity where both man and nature were working in unison without a clear distinction between them.

Such an ancient Greek concept of nature is commonly referred to as “physis.” It is the root word of “physical” and “physics.” The meaning of “physis” is very close to the Japanese word “ji nen.” In Japanese, we write the word meaning nature as “自然,” but we can read it in two ways; “shi zen” and “ji nen.” That’s the same “ji nen” when we call Japanese yams “jinen-jo,” which have a more earthly smell, richer taste, and stickiness than ordinary yams. If you look up in the Japanese dictionary, you will find the definition of nature as ‘something that makes itself,’ as shown in those two characters: 自( one’s own) 然(to put into a state)

One makes itself what it is — such a Japanese view toward nature resonates with the ancient Greek notion of physis. Just like a flower blossom itself by means of its inherent intelligence, Anaxagoras must have envisioned nature’s intelligence which turns and expresses its interiority into exteriority.

Perhaps the ancient Greeks imagined nature as such. For them, human beings were also an expression of things in nature. Well, this is an important point. I’m not saying that only humans possess intelligence. Nor am I talking about the kind of intelligence humans uniquely have.

The intelligence that Anaxagoras refers to is a primordial intelligence that creates the harmonic order permeated in nature. I repeat myself: It is not the same as our ordinary notion of intelligence. It is noos. In that sense, noos is interpreted as ‘Divine Intelligence,’ ‘Cosmic Mind,’ or ‘active intelligence’ today.

Scientists call it “something great” sometimes, implying that Mother Nature conceives intelligence unfathomable to humanity. Having said all those, I can explain the significance of this new study field, Noosology. When translated directly, the word “Noosology” means ‘the logos inherent in noos,’ which lies behind Anaxagoras’ concept of noos. Noosology seeks to revive noos in human thought by clarifying the logic behind its idea in a way appropriate to the 21st century. However, a small question may arise among you here.

Because when we talk about ancient Greek philosophers, the first to come to our mind are usually Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and so on. You may wonder why Handa intensely focuses on such a minor philosopher as Anaxagoras. Well, I understand. But there is a reason.

The reason is that, in a sense, Noosology inherits Heidegger’s philosophy. Heidegger thoroughly criticized the history of Western philosophy after Socrates as a history of existential oblivion. I will explain more about the meaning of his term ‘existential oblivion’ in this Noosology Research Lab video series. Still, to begin with, I will say that there is an invisible, great fault line between Anaxagoras and Socrates and the following well-known ancient Greek philosophers after him in the sense of the principle of thinking. I will put this simply like this;

The difference is whether one sees man as a part of nature or objectifies nature and sees man as a separate entity from nature. More precisely and philosophically, it is whether subject and object are in unity or subject and object are in separation. In other words, the current of ancient Greek philosophy changed its direction due to the crucial rift between Anaxagoras and Socrates. Pythagoras was also involved with this, but I will not go into that today.

In this day and age, the Pythagorean-derived mathematical perception completely dominates our view of the world, and we see nature only as mere substances or quantified energy, right? Our natural science plays a huge role in this regard. But this was not the case in ancient Greece before the advent of Pythagoras and Socrates. For them, nature was instead a spiritual being, and there was no such concept of nature as material apart from man. It is said that Anaxagoras was born in 500 BCE. Socrates, on the other hand, was born around 470 BCE. So there is an age gap between them, just about one generation gap.

They were about 30 years apart in age, like father and son. Even though they both are ancient Greek philosophers, a wall separates them; that’s how I see them. Now, let me explain more precisely what these differences are.

As mentioned by Mr. Takahashi in his research video, Socrates was initially delighted by Anaxagoras’ introduction of the ideological principle, noos, to explain nature and cosmology. There is even an anecdote that he rushed to buy and read Anaxagoras’ book, On Nature.

Well, he must have been an ardent fan. However, there is also a story that Socrates could not hide his disappointment when he read the book because it contained nothing concrete about noos. I’m unsure if it is because of this, but Socrates’ philosophy is more concerned with human beings than nature. As reflected in his famous sayings such as ‘the unexamined life is not worth living,’ ‘a law is a law, however undesirable it may be,’ Socrates was a philosopher who pursued the way of human life through justice, virtue, ethics, and prudence for human society rather than searching for the order of the natural world.

Most people today consider it to be an essential role of philosophy. However, from the viewpoint of physis that I mentioned earlier, the situation becomes very different. From Socrates onward, the ancient Greek philosophy became not so much a philosophy of nature as a philosophy of human beings seeking the judgment of right and wrong; in other words, a philosophy based on subjectivity. On the other hand, there is no good or evil originally in nature. Moreover, nature does not make judgments about what is right and what is wrong. In this sense, Socrates’ philosophy has shifted to man-centered and no longer delves into physis, where nature and man are united.

And it was Heidegger who made a scathing criticism of this. Do you understand his standing point? Even today, is it possible to reestablish the philosophy of physis that the ancient Greek philosophers before Socrates were pursuing? In this age of scientific dogmatism, is it possible to create a new scope to look at nature? Now, I will say, Noosology is a system of thought that challenges to create the philosophy of physis intuited by the utterly new intelligence, noos, that Anaxagoras mentioned. In other words, Noosology tries to form a philosophy that transcends human thought and being. That’s the objective of Noosology.

So, I will end here today. Thank you for watching. See you again!