Donald Trump has the audacity and gigantic overwhelming sweeping self-confident ego of a Napoleon, and his ruthless, obsessive, single-minded will to win. But will he triumph?
Some of what follows about Donald Trump and his surprisingly soaring poll numbers and strong run for the presidency (I didn't think he'd get this far) is taken from my piece "Border Security Chaos, Illegal Alien Crime and the Providential Candidacy of Donald Trump (see)." However, this piece which greatly expands on that is not an endorsement of Trump's candidacy nor a prediction of his success. However, as Trump seizing the Republican nomination and becoming President is now a real possibility the question is this: is the menagerie of fascinating, uncanny "coincidences" that I've discovered about Trump's forceful, brash, ruthless, Napoleonic-like candidacy the signature effects and signs of a Higher Power that he's destined for glory? In other words, is Trump's strong, aggressive, indomitable personality, fervent patriotic nationalism and titanic commitment to restoring America's greatness what this country needs after eight years of precipitous, ruinous, deliberate decline under the weak, pathetic, sickening, un-American Barack Obama?
America and the Free World need a strong, inspiring, optimistic, pro-American leader dedicated to secure borders, law and order, national restoration and rebuilding the economy and military. But is Donald Trump who’s never held elective office and is currently more heat and anger (there's much to be angry about) than light the right man for this Herculean undertaking? He might just be. But we shall know in due course.
TRUMP, ANN COULTER, KATE STEINLE, EL CHAPO AND SANCTUARY CITIES
Making illegal immigration and border security his key issues Trump declared his candidacy on June 16th for the Republican nomination in 2016 to be the next President living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As you will see from the following "16" is Trump's auspicious number and may be a Providential Sign that he's destined for the presidency.
Indeed, On June 1st, 16 days before Trump kicked off his campaign, Ann Coulter published “Adios America” her outstanding, controversial, bestselling book on the crisis of illegal immigration (what I call "The Disease of Borderporosis (see))". Coulter is now an ardent Trumpian as she sees in the billionaire a serious, energetic, indefatigable patriot wanting to end the plague of illegal immigration and restore America’s prosperity, power and greatness.
Then 16 days after Trump announced his White House run Providence seemed to intervene to elevate Trump and his border security crusade with a tragedy that shocked the nation. On July 1st beautiful, innocent 32 year old Kate Steinle was shot dead by 45 year old Francisco Sanchez on a pier in San Franscisco-one of many US sanctuary cities. Sanchez, a multiple deportee felon from Mexico, was 16 days into the 3rd month of his legal but wrongful release from a local jail because of the city's dangerous sanctuary laws. Strangely, Kate Steinle's age 32 (16 doubled) is the exact number of States with sanctuary cities (see).
Then shortly after Steinle's death Trump got another political boost when on July 11th Mexican drug lord Joaquin Guzman, aka El Chapo, escaped from a maximum security prison. Trump quickly made political hay of this by tweeting:
"El Chapo and the Mexican drug cartels use the border unimpeded like it was a vacuum cleaner, sucking drugs and death right into the U.S."
El Chapo responded by offering a $100 million reward for Trump's death. Now as “16” appears to be Trump’s auspicious campaign number it's applicable here as well. For it so happens that July 11th fell on the 192nd day of the year. 192 is a multiple of 16 12x (see).
TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION REFORM PLAN
Trump at the border.
16 AND ELECTION DAY 2016
Trump (b. June 14, 1946) who announced his candidacy on June 16th will be exactly 25, 716 days old on Election Day (11-08-2016 see). Moreover, from June 16, 2015 to Election Day spans exactly 512 days. 512 is a multiple of 16 32x. Incredibly, 512 days translates into 16 months of calendar time (see). Is this yet another auspicious sign of a Trump Election Day victory?
DONALD TRUMP: 45TH PRESIDENT OF THE US?
When Trump began his campaign on June 16th for the 45th presidency it was in the 3600th week of his awesomely successful life (see). 3600 is a multiple of 45 80x.
As mentioned above, Francisco Sanchez, the criminal alien who murdered Kate Steinle and gave Trump's border security driven campaign a tremendous political boost, is 45 years old.
TRUMP AND GEORGE H. W. BUSH
When on June 14, 1989 Donald Trump celebrated his 45th birthday it was the 145th day of George H. W. Bush's presidency (see). Bush, a Republican, was the last presidential candidate to win election on a November 8th election date. Moreover, Bush (b. 6-12-1924) celebrates his birthday two days before Trump's*.
*George H. W. Bush was 22 years old when Donald Trump was born. Incredibly Trump was 22 days old when George W. Bush was born on July 6, 1946.
TRUMP, BILL CLINTON AND GEORGE W. BUSH
America has had two presidents born in the year 1946: Bill Clinton (b. August 19, 1946) and George W. Bush (b. July 6, 1946). If Trump (b. June 14, 1946) wins in 2016 he will be the third born in that year. Now assuming that the country sends Trump to the White House then this trio of 1946 born Presidents will run consecutively in reverse order from the youngest Clinton born in August, to Bush born in July, to Trump (the oldest of the three) born in June. Oddly, and amazingly, Bush's and Clinton's birthdays are separated by total of 44 days (see); and Trump's and Bush's birthdays by exactly half that or 22 days (see). Moreover, Trump’s and Clinton’s birthdays are 66 days apart (see). A nice neat symmetrical arithmetic progression.
Furthermore, (and this is fascinating) just as Trump was 22 days old when George W. Bush was born Bush's father GHW (b. June 12, 1924) ironically was 22 years old when Trump was born (see). Could this be a sign that Trump (who is anti-Bush) will be the next Republican President after the two Bushes?
TRUMP, THE ROOSEVELTS AND NEW YORK
If Donald Trump wins both the GOP nomination and presidency in 2016 he'll be the first New Yorker since Franklin Roosevelt to be President. Roosevelt, the 32nd President (32 is double 16), was elected on November 8, 1932. If Trump triumphs in 2016 it will auspiciously fall on the 84th anniversary of FDR's crushing victory over hapless Republican Herbert Hoover.
Moreover, if FDR (b. January 30, 1882) were alive on the day Trump was born he would have been precisely 64 years, 4 months and 16 days old. 64 is a multiple of 16 4x, 4 is the square root of 16, and the remaining 16 days speaks for itself (see). Are these signs that Trump is DESTINED to be America's next President from New York after FDR?
Furthermore, June 16th was the 167th day of the year (the 67th number of the 100 series, see). If Trump wins the presidency on the anniversary of FDR's landslide 1932 victory he will be the 7th President from New York after FDR (the 6th). Trump will also be 70 years old*.
*If Trump wins the presidency not only will he be the 7th president from new York, but he'll be exactly 70 years, 7 months and 7 days old at his inaugural (see).
And lastly, Donald Trump's father Fred died at New Hyde Park-FDR's birthplace (see).
FDR’S DEATH IN 1945
FDR, the last US President from New York, died in 1945. Now if Trump triumphs in 2016 on November 8th (anniversary of FDR's election victory) not only will he be the 45th President but in the GOP's 162 year history he will also be its 19th President. This gives us the numbers 19 and 45 indicating the year of FDR’s death.
Furthermore, a President Trump will be the first Republican President from New York since Teddy Roosevelt who Trump resembles in his vigorous, manly, bold, straightforward personality and patriotic, make America great nationalism.
BTW, If Trump is sworn in as President on January 20, 2017 it will be approximately 116 years (the 16th number of the 100 series) from TR becoming President on William McKinley's death in 1901.
RONALD REAGAN AND THE OLD POST OFFICE PAVILLION
You've heard Trump bragging about the lease that he won from the “Obama Administration” for redeveloping the Old Post Office Pavillion in Washington DC. What you probably don't know is that Trump won this deal on February 6, 2012, the 101st anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth; and that the building's address 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue is just 500 numbers down the street from the White House at 1600 . Is winning this prime piece of historic real estate situated within earshot of the White House on the anniversary of Reagan's birth a favorable sign for Trump that he is on his way to the presidency (see)? Ronald Reagan's third term? I wouldn't bet against it.
DONALD TRUMP VS. HILLARY CLINTON
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the front running presidential candidates of their respective parties. A contest between the two would be like a high powered lawn mower verses a weak rancid weed. Trump though 69 is in excellent health a killer full of zeal, optimism and animal spirits; Hillary though slightly younger than Trump is old beyond her years with less than half of his stamina, energy and strength-worn down by a job where she traveled the world doing nothing for her country but much for the corrupt, criminal Clinton Foundation. The Clintons cannot do to the immensely wealthy kick-ass Trump what Team Obama did to the nicer, gentlier, moderate Mitt Romney-who ran away from his success like a wuss and too gentle with his opponent. But are there signs suggesting, pointing to, indicating that in a duel between Trump and Hillary Trump would win? I believe there are. But I'll let you be the judge of that. This is what I found:
On the day that Hillary was born (October 26, 1947) Donald Trump was enjoying the 500th day of his infant life. Why could that be auspicious for Trump and ominous for Hillary? Well, do the math. As there are roughly 30 days in a month 500 days divided by 30 gives us how many months? Do I hear 16 (see)? Need I go on?
(October 26, 2016)
Today Donald Trump on Hillary Clinton's 69th birthday (the 16th month of his campaign) officially opened the Trump International Hotel at the Old Post Office Pavillion. Was this by accident or design? Did Trump do it to make Hillary and her ridiculing of his business career look foolish? Hillary campaigning in Tampa (and making herself look cheap) took a swipe at Trump and his achievement saying (without any proof) that he hires illegal Mexican aliens to build his projects and work at his hotels. She even trotted out a Chef Jose Andres who backed out of opening a restaurant at the new Trump hotel because of comments Trump made about Mexicans. If you want a good laugh listened to his silly speech (see).
Wonder what Chef Jose thinks of the Mexican Americans who agree with Trump on immigration and don't see him as racist (see)? What can Jose say that they're more American than Mexican (too assimilated) and therefore not truly representative of Mexicans? Meanwhile, as Hillary was campaigning on her birthday in Florida she received word that the latest Bloomberg poll had Trump topping her by two points there. No surprise to me as I've predicted Trump taking the Sunshine State for very good empirical reasons: the sickest, most lifeless, least inspiring Democrat presidential candidate in history isn't energizing voters.
It just occurred to me that the total number of votes of the Electoral College is 538. 538 is a variant of the number 16: 5+3+8 = 16. Is this a propitious sign that November 8th (the 16th month of Trump's campaign) we will see a Donald Trump victory?
His prospects are looking brilliant.
"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.
"By nature animals are born with the faculty of sensation, and from sensation memory is produced in some of them, though not in others. And therefore the former are more intelligent and apt at learning than those which cannot remember; those which are incapable of hearing sounds are intelligent though they cannot be taught, e.g. the bee, and any other race of animals that may be like it; and those which besides memory have this sense of hearing can be taught.
"The animals other than man live by appearances and memories, and have but little of connected experience; but the human race lives also by art and reasonings. Now from memory experience is produced in men; for the several memories of the same thing produce finally the capacity for a single experience. And experience seems pretty much like science and art, but really science and art come to men through experience; for 'experience made art', as Polussays, 'but inexperience luck.' Now art arises when from many notions gained by experience one universal judgement about a class of objects is produced. For to have a judgement that when Callias was ill of this disease this did him good, and similarly in the case of Socrates and in many individual cases, is a matter of experience; but to judge that it has done good to all persons of a certain constitution, marked off in one class, when they were ill of this disease, e.g. to phlegmatic or bilious people when burning with fevers-this is a matter of art.
"With a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience. (The reason is that experience is knowledge of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all concerned with the individual; for the physician does not cure man, except in an incidental way, but Callias or Socrates or some other called by some such individual name, who happens to be a man. If, then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be cured.) But yet we think that knowledge and understanding belong to art rather than to experience, and we suppose artists to be wiser than men of experience (which implies that Wisdom depends in all cases rather on knowledge); and this because the former know the cause, but the latter do not. For men of experience know that the thing is so, but do not know why, while the others know the 'why' and the cause. Hence we think also that the masterworkers in each craft are more honourable and know in a truer sense and are wiser than the manual workers, because they know the causes of the things that are done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire burns,-but while the lifeless things perform each of their functions by a natural tendency, the labourers perform them through habit); thus we view them as being wiser not in virtue of being able to act, but of having the theory for themselves and knowing the causes. And in general it is a sign of the man who knows and of the man who does not know, that the former can teach, and therefore we think art more truly knowledge than experience is; for artists can teach, and men of mere experience cannot.
"Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the 'why' of anything-e.g. why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot.
"At first he who invented any art whatever that went beyond the common perceptions of man was naturally admired by men, not only because there was something useful in the inventions, but because he was thought wise and superiorto the rest. But as more arts were invented, and some were directed to the necessities of life, others to recreation, the inventors of the latter were naturally always regarded as wiser than the inventors of the former, because their branches of knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the mathematical arts were founded in Egypt; for there the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure.
"We have said in the Ethics what the difference is between art and science and the other kindred faculties; but the point of our present discussion is this, that all men suppose what is called Wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things; so that, as has been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense-perception whatever, the artist wiser than the men of experience, the masterworker than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of Wisdom than the productive. Clearly then Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes.
Part 2 "
"Since we are seeking this knowledge, we must inquire of what kind are the causes and the principles, the knowledge of which is Wisdom. If one were to take the notions we have about the wise man, this might perhaps make the answer more evident. We suppose first, then, that the wise man knows all things, as far as possible, although he has not knowledge of each of them in detail; secondly, that he who can learn things that are difficult, and not easy for man to know, is wise (sense-perception is common to all, and therefore easy and no mark of Wisdom); again, that he who ismore exact and more capable of teaching the causes is wiser, in every branch of knowledge; and that of the sciences, also, that which is desirable on its own account and for the sake of knowing it is more of the nature of Wisdom than that which is desirable on account of its results, and the superior science is more of the nature of Wisdom than the ancillary; for the wise man must not be ordered but must order, and he must not obey another, but the less wise must obey him.
"Such and so many are the notions, then, which we have about Wisdom and the wise. Now of these characteristics that of knowing all things must belong to him who has in the highest degree universal knowledge; for he knows in a sense all the instances that fall under the universal. And these things, the most universal, are on the whole the hardest for men to know; for they are farthest from the senses. And the most exact of the sciences are those which deal most with first principles; for those which involve fewer principles are more exact than those which involve additional principles, e.g. arithmetic than geometry. But the science which investigates causes is also instructive, in a higher degree, for the people who instruct us are those who tell the causes of each thing. And understanding and knowledge pursued for their own sake are found most in the knowledge of that which is most knowable (for he who chooses toknow for the sake of knowing will choose most readily that which is most truly knowledge, and such is the knowledge of that which is most knowable); and the first principles and the causes are most knowable; for by reason of these, and from these, all other things come to be known, and not these by means of the things subordinate to them. And the science which knows to what end each thing must be done is the most authoritative of the sciences, and more authoritative than any ancillary science; and this end is the good of that thing, and in general the supreme good in the whole of nature. Judged by all the tests we have mentioned, then, the name in question falls to the same science; this must be a science that investigates the first principles and causes; for the good, i.e. the end, is one of the causes.
"That it is not a science of production is clear even from the history of the earliest philosophers. For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant (whence even the lover of myth is in a sense a lover of Wisdom, for the myth is composed of wonders); therefore since they philosophized order to escape from ignorance, evidently they were pursuing science in order to know, and not for any utilitarian end. And this is confirmed by the facts; for it was when almost all the necessities of life and the things that make for comfort and recreation had been secured, that such knowledge began to be sought. Evidently then we do not seek it for the sake of any other advantage; but as the man is free, we say, who exists for his own sake and not for another's, so we pursue this as the only free science, for it alone exists for its own sake.
"Hence also the possession of it might be justly regarded as beyond human power; for in many ways human nature is in bondage, so that according to Simonides 'God alone can have this privilege', and it is unfitting that man should not be content to seek the knowledge that is suited to him. If, then, there is something in what the poets say, and jealousy is natural to the divine power, it would probably occur in this case above all, and all who excelled in this knowledge would be unfortunate. But the divine power cannot be jealous (nay, according to the proverb, 'bards tell a lie'), nor should any other science be thought more honourable than one of this sort. For the most divine science is also most honourable; and this science alone must be, in two ways, most divine. For the science which it would be most meet forGod to have is a divine science, and so is any science that deals with divine objects; and this science alone has both these qualities; for (1) God is thought to be among the causes of all things and to be a first principle, and (2) such a science either God alone can have, or God above all others. All the sciences, indeed, are more necessary than this, but none is better.
"Yet the acquisition of it must in a sense end in something which is the opposite of our original inquiries. For all men begin, as we said, by wondering that things are as they are, as they do about self-moving marionettes, or about the solstices or the incommensurability of the diagonal of a square with the side; for it seems wonderful to all who have not yet seen the reason, that there is a thing which cannot be measured even by the smallest unit. But we must end in the contrary and, according to the proverb, the better state, as is the case in these instances too when men learn the cause; for there is nothing which would surprise a geometer so much as if the diagonal turned out to be commensurable.
"We have stated, then, what is the nature of the science we are searching for, and what is the mark which our search and our whole investigation must reach.
Part 3 "
"Evidently we have to acquire knowledge of the original causes (for we say we know each thing only when we think we recognize its first cause), and causes are spoken of in four senses. In one of these we mean the substance, i.e. the essence (for the 'why' is reducible finally to the definition, and the ultimate 'why' is a cause and principle); in anotherthe matter or substratum, in a third the source of the change, and in a fourth the cause opposed to this, the purpose and the good (for this is the end of all generation and change). We have studied these causes sufficiently in our work on nature, but yet let us call to our aid those who have attacked the investigation of being and philosophized about reality before us. For obviously they too speak of certain principles and causes; to go over their views, then, will be of profit to the present inquiry, for we shall either find another kind of cause, or be more convinced of the correctness of those which we now maintain.
"Of the first philosophers, then, most thought the principles which were of the nature of matter were the only principles of all things. That of which all things that are consist, the first from which they come to be, the last into which they are resolved (the substance remaining, but changing in its modifications), this they say is the element and this the principle of things, and therefore they think nothing is either generated or destroyed, since this sort of entity is always conserved, as we say Socrates neither comes to be absolutely when he comes to be beautiful or musical, nor ceases to be when loses these characteristics, because the substratum, Socrates himself remains. just so they say nothing else comes to be or ceases to be; for there must be some entity-either one or more than one-from which all other things come to be, it being conserved.
"Yet they do not all agree as to the number and the nature of these principles. Thales, the founder of this type of philosophy, says the principle is water (for which reason he declared that the earth rests on water), getting the notion perhaps from seeing that the nutriment of all things is moist, and that heat itself is generated from the moist and kept alive by it (and that from which they come to be is a principle of all things). He got his notion from this fact, and fromthe fact that the seeds of all things have a moist nature, and that water is the origin of the nature of moist things.
"Some think that even the ancients who lived long before the present generation, and first framed accounts of the gods, had a similar view of nature; for they made Ocean and Tethys the parents of creation, and described the oath of the gods as being by water, to which they give the name of Styx; for what is oldest is most honourable, and the most honourable thing is that by which one swears. It may perhaps be uncertain whether this opinion about nature isprimitive and ancient, but Thales at any rate is said to have declared himself thus about the first cause. Hippo no one would think fit to include among these thinkers, because of the paltriness of his thought.
"Anaximenes and Diogenes make air prior to water, and the most primary of the simple bodies, while Hippasus of Metapontium and Heraclitus of Ephesus say this of fire, and Empedocles says it of the four elements (adding a fourth-earth-to those which have been named); for these, he says, always remain and do not come to be, except that they come to be more or fewer, being aggregated into one and segregated out of one.
"Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, who, though older than Empedocles, was later in his philosophical activity, says the principles are infinite in number; for he says almost all the things that are made of parts like themselves, in the manner of water or fire, are generated and destroyed in this way, only by aggregation and segregation, and are not in any other sense generated or destroyed, but remain eternally.
"From these facts one might think that the only cause is the so-called material cause; but as men thus advanced, the very facts opened the way for them and joined in forcing them to investigate the subject. However true it may be that all generation and destruction proceed from some one or (for that matter) from more elements, why does this happen and what is the cause? For at least the substratum itself does not make itself change; e.g. neither the wood nor the bronze causes the change of either of them, nor does the wood manufacture a bed and the bronze a statue, but something else is the cause of the change. And to seek this is to seek the second cause, as we should say,-that from which comes the beginning of the movement. Now those who at the very beginning set themselves to this kind of inquiry, and said the substratum was one, were not at all dissatisfied with themselves; but some at least of those who maintain it to be one-as though defeated by this search for the second cause-say the one and nature as a whole is unchangeable not only in respect of generation and destruction (for this is a primitive belief, and all agreed in it), but also of all other change; and this view is peculiar to them. Of those who said the universe was one, then none succeeded in discovering a cause of this sort, except perhaps Parmenides, and he only inasmuch as he supposes that there is not only one but also in some sense two causes. But for those who make more elements it is more possible to state the second cause, e.g. for those who make hot and cold, or fire and earth, the elements; for they treat fire as having a nature which fits it to move things, and water and earth and such things they treat in the contrary way.
"When these men and the principles of this kind had had their day, as the latter were found inadequate to generate the nature of things men were again forced by the truth itself, as we said, to inquire into the next kind of cause. For it is not likely either that fire or earth or any such element should be the reason why things manifest goodness and, beauty both in their being and in their coming to be, or that those thinkers should have supposed it was; nor again could it be right to entrust so great a matter to spontaneity and chance. When one man said, then, that reason was present-as in animals, so throughout nature-as the cause of order and of all arrangement, he seemed like a sober man in contrast with the random talk of his predecessors. We know that Anaxagoras certainly adopted these views, but Hermotimus ofClazomenae is credited with expressing them earlier. Those who thought thus stated that there is a principle of things which is at the same time the cause of beauty, and that sort of cause from which things acquire movement.
Part 4 "
"One might suspect that Hesiod was the first to look for such a thing-or some one else who put love or desire among existing things as a principle, as Parmenides, too, does; for he, in constructing the genesis of the universe, says:- "
"Love first of all the Gods she planned. "
"And Hesiod says:- "
"First of all things was chaos made, and then
"And love, 'mid all the gods pre-eminent, "
which implies that among existing things there must be from the first a cause which will move things and bring them together. How these thinkers should be arranged with regard to priority of discovery let us be allowed to decide later; but since the contraries of the various forms of good were also perceived to be present in nature-not only order and the beautiful, but also disorder and the ugly, and bad things in greater number than good, and ignoble things than beautiful-therefore another thinker introduced friendship and strife, each of the two the cause of one of these two sets of qualities. For if we were to follow out the view of Empedocles, and interpret it according to its meaning and not to its lisping expression, we should find that friendship is the cause of good things, and strife of bad. Therefore, if we said that Empedocles in a sense both mentions, and is the first to mention, the bad and the good as principles, we should perhaps be right, since the cause of all goods is the good itself.
"These thinkers, as we say, evidently grasped, and to this extent, two of the causes which we distinguished in our work on nature-the matter and the source of the movement-vaguely, however, and with no clearness, but as untrained men behave in fights; for they go round their opponents and often strike fine blows, but they do not fight on scientific principles, and so too these thinkers do not seem to know what they say; for it is evident that, as a rule, they make no use of their causes except to a small extent. For Anaxagoras uses reason as a deus ex machina for the making of the world, and when he is at a loss to tell from what cause something necessarily is, then he drags reason in, but in all other cases ascribes events to anything rather than to reason. And Empedocles, though he uses the causes to a greater extent than this, neither does so sufficiently nor attains consistency in their use. At least, in many cases he makes love segregate things, and strife aggregate them. For whenever the universe is dissolved into its elements by strife, fire is aggregated into one, and so is each of the other elements; but whenever again under the influence of love they come together into one, the parts must again be segregated out of each element.
"Empedocles, then, in contrast with his precessors, was the first to introduce the dividing of this cause, not positing one source of movement, but different and contrary sources. Again, he was the first to speak of four material elements; yet he does not use four, but treats them as two only; he treats fire by itself, and its opposite-earth, air, and water-as one kind of thing. We may learn this by study of his verses.
"This philosopher then, as we say, has spoken of the principles in this way, and made them of this number. Leucippus and his associate Democritus say that the full and the empty are the elements, calling the one being and the other non-being-the full and solid being being, the empty non-being (whence they say being no more is than non-being, because the solid no more is than the empty); and they make these the material causes of things. And as those who make the underlying substance one generate all other things by its modifications, supposing the rare and the dense to be the sources of the modifications, in the same way these philosophers say the differences in the elements are the causes of all other qualities. These differences, they say, are three-shape and order and position. For they say the real is differentiated only by 'rhythm and 'inter-contact' and 'turning'; and of these rhythm is shape, inter-contact is order, andturning is position; for A differs from N in shape, AN from NA in order, M from W in position. The question of movement-whence or how it is to belong to things-these thinkers, like the others, lazily neglected.
"Regarding the two causes, then, as we say, the inquiry seems to have been pushed thus far by the early philosophers.
Part 5 "
"Contemporaneously with these philosophers and before them, the so-called Pythagoreans, who were the first to take up mathematics, not only advanced this study, but also having been brought up in it they thought its principles were the principles of all things. Since of these principles numbers are by nature the first, and in numbers they seemed to see many resemblances to the things that exist and come into being-more than in fire and earth and water (such and such a modification of numbers being justice, another being soul and reason, another being opportunity-and similarlyalmost all other things being numerically expressible); since, again, they saw that the modifications and the ratios of the musical scales were expressible in numbers;-since, then, all other things seemed in their whole nature to be modelled on numbers, and numbers seemed to be the first things in the whole of nature, they supposed the elements of numbers to be the elements of all things, and the whole heaven to be a musical scale and a number. And all the properties of numbers and scales which they could show to agree with the attributes and parts and the whole arrangement of the heavens, they collected and fitted into their scheme; and if there was a gap anywhere, they readily made additions so as to make their whole theory coherent. E.g. as the number 10 is thought to be perfect and to comprise the whole nature of numbers, they say that the bodies which move through the heavens are ten, but as the visible bodies are only nine, to meet this they invent a tenth--the 'counter-earth'. We have discussed these matters more exactly elsewhere An auspicious sign.
"But the object of our review is that we may learn from these philosophers also what they suppose to be the principles and how these fall under the causes we have named. Evidently, then, these thinkers also consider that number is the principle both as matter for things and as forming both their modifications and their permanent states, and hold that the elements of number are the even and the odd, and that of these the latter is limited, and the former unlimited; and that the One proceeds from both of these (for it is both even and odd)lllllllllll