This is a big question which has kept philosophers busy over the centuries. Can all of reality be reduced to one single principle? Some folks say so; they are called ‘monists.’ The question for them is, then, what is that one single principle.
Other philosophers argue that reality is too complex to be reduced to a single principle, and that there are actually two principles at work. These thinkers are called ‘dualists.’
The discussion of dualism and monism is a big one, and way too large for this blog post. It suffices to note, for present purposes, that Thales seems to have been a monist. One must quickly add that he probably would not have conceptualized it that way, and that there are lots of things that remain unknown about his metaphysical system, and which levels and types of reality he might have postulated, as Donald Palmer writes:
Thales was familiar with the four elements: air, fire, water, and earth. He assumed that all things must ultimately be reducible to one of these — but which one?
It is easy to laugh at the traditional framework of four elements, but it is a logical system. With Thales, the system remains in place, but is elevated by adding a conceptual level to the mythological framework.
In all the empirical experience that one could have in the year 600 B.C., water was ubiquitous. Water is necessary for life, and water surrounds all land masses. So water seems like a good choice if one is looking for a universal principle:
Of all the elements, water is the most obvious in its transformations: Rivers turn into deltas, water turns into ice and then back into water, which in turn can be changed into steam, which becomes air, and air, in the form of wind, fans fire.
Why would a twenty-first century philosopher spend time thinking about Thales, or taking his ideas seriously? Because Thales was trying to do what physicists are still doing: searching for a “grand unified theory” (GUT).
There is an innate drive in humans to seek foundational principles. Does this innate drive imply that such principles exist? The monists, in any case, continue to seek one central axiom to explain reality. Thales was perhaps the first one to do this, and led all the others in that direction.
It’s clear that Thales was looking for such a foundational concept, as Donald Palmer reports:
Thale’s actual words were: “The first principle and basic nature of all things is water.”This obviously false conclusion is valued today not for its content but for its form (it is not a great leap between “All things are composed of water” and the claim “All things are composed of atoms”) and for the presupposition behind it (that there is an ultimate stuff behind appearances that explains change while remaining itself unchanged). Viewed this way, Thales can be seen as the first philosopher to introduce the project of reductionism. Reductionism is a method of explanation that takes an object that confronts us on the surface as being one kind of thing and shows that the object can be reduced to a more basic kind of thing at a deeper but less obvious level of analysis. This project is usually seen as a major function of modern science.
Thales is, then, the father of reductionism. Simply put, an observer might note the commonalities between trees, grass, marigolds, tomatoes, etc., and create a category called “green plants.” In this category, one finds photosynthesis, a need for water, a need for light, roots, leaves, etc.
Reductionism is, in its simplest form, the creation of categories.
The question is: How far can one take reductionism? Is it possible to take it too far? Is it possible to take it not far enough? This question will reappear over and over again, in various forms, in the history of philosophy. Not to take reductionism far enough is to create a “distinction without a difference.” To take reductionism too far is to overlook differences.
In any case, Thales seems to be, not only the father of philosophy, but also rather the father of monism and reductionism. Not bad work for a guy living around 600 B.C.!
