In the Torah section, Chayei Sarah informs us that Sarah died in Kiriath-Arba (lit., “village of Arba.”). Genesis 23:2. However, Arba also means “four,” and Kiriath-Arba can be translated as the “city of four.” (Genesis Rabbah, 58:4). The Zohar interprets this verse to mean that the human body (personified by Sarah) is made of four elements (arba yesodot, “four foundations”), which are joined together so long as the person is alive, and which return to their respective sources after soul leaves the body. (Midrash Neelam, Zohar Hadash, 122b) What are the four elements, and what is their meaning? In this essay, we will trace the history of this idea and seek its modern interpretation.

I.              Introduction

The concept of classical elements was an important doctrine in ancient philosophies. These elements were envisioned as the fundamental constituents of the natural world, embodying both physical substances and metaphysical principles. In ancient Greece, the four classical elements—earth, water, air, and fire—formed the basis of natural philosophy and influenced subsequent scientific thought. Similarly, other ancient cultures, such as those in India and China, developed their own elemental systems, integrating them into broader cosmological and philosophical frameworks. This essay focuses on the meaning of the four elements in Jewish thought—philosophy, Kabbalah, and Chasidic thought—where they are called “four foundations” (arba yesodot). Ultimately, the aim of this essay is to explore scientific metaphors of the four foundations.

II.           The Classical Elements in Ancient Philosophies

1.    The Classical Elements in Ancient Greece

The notion of elements as fundamental building blocks emerged prominently in ancient Greek philosophy. Empedocles (c. 494–434 BCE) is credited with introducing the idea of four root elements—earth, water, air, and fire—which he referred to as the “four roots” (rhizomata). He posited that these elements are eternal and unchangeable and that all matter results from their combination and separation under the influence of Love and Strife. (Freeman, 1948)

In fragmentary works, Empedocles states:

Hear first the four roots of all things: bright Zeus [fire], life-bringing Hera [air], Aidoneus [earth], and Nestis [water], moistening mortal springs with tears. —Empedocles, as cited in (Empedocles in Freeman, 1948, p. 68)

Plato (c. 427–347 BCE) further developed the concept of elements in his dialogue Timaeus. He associated each element with a specific geometric solid, the Platonic solids, which he believed were the perfect building blocks of the cosmos:

…the earth was formed in the cubical shape; fire, the least stable, in the shape of the pyramid; air in the octahedron; water in the icosahedron. (Plato, Timaeus, translated by Cornford 1937, 55d–56c)

Plato’s assignment reflects his philosophical view that mathematical forms underpin the physical world, with the elements representing different states of matter based on their geometric properties.

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) offered a more systematic approach in his work On Generation and Corruption. He proposed that the elements are defined by pairs of fundamental qualities: hot, cold, wet, and dry. Each element embodies two of these qualities:

• Fire: hot and dry
• Air: hot and wet
• Water: cold and wet
• Earth: cold and dry

Aristotle explained:

There are four elements, and the qualities which constitute their essential nature are four. Each element possesses two of these qualities, and by a change in one or both of its qualities, an element can transform into another. (Aristotle, II.3, 330b, translated by Joachim, 1922)

Four Classical Elements. By en:User:Heron – Transwikied from en:. Originally uploaded by en:User:Heron. Recompressed with OptiPNG by Michael. Converted to SVG by tiZom, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2262444

This framework accounted for the diversity of matter and allowed for a dynamic interplay among the elements, accounting for natural processes through the transformation of qualities.

Aristotle added a fifth element, aether, as the quintessence. These five elements have been associated with the five platonic solids. (Lloyd, G. E. R., 1968)

Other ancient traditions, such as Indian and Chinese philosophical traditions, developed similar systems that were based on five elements.^[1]

2.    The Jewish Thought

The concept of the four classical elements—earth, water, air, and fire—has played a significant role in various ancient philosophies as foundational constituents of the natural world. In Jewish thought, these elements first appear within early mystical and philosophical texts, reflecting both indigenous developments and interactions with surrounding cultures and philosophies.

(i)                  Kabbalah

One of the earliest Jewish texts where the four elements are implicitly referenced is the Sefer Yetzirah (“Book of Formation”), a foundational work in Jewish mysticism and Kabbalah. The exact dating of Sefer Yetzirah is uncertain, with scholarly estimates ranging from the 2nd to the 6th century CE (Kaplan, 1990). The text explores the creation of the universe through the manipulation of Hebrew letters, numbers, and elemental forces.

In Sefer Yetzirah 3:4, the text mentions three “mother letters”—Aleph (א), Mem (מ), and Shin (ש)—which correspond to air, water, and fire, respectively:

Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin—Their foundation is a pan of merit, a pan of liability, and the tongue of decree deciding between them. (Kaplan, p. 103, 1990)

The element of earth is not explicitly listed among the three mother letters. According to later Kabbalah authorities, these three elements are primary, whereas the element of earth is a composite element comprised of the three primary elements.^[1] (Zohar, A 29b), (Cordovero, 2007), (Ari, 2008), (Sefer HaTemunah, Third Temunah).

While the Sefer HaBahir (one of the oldest books of Kabbalah traditionally attributed to Rabbi Hunia ben HaKanah) does not explicitly list the four elements as earth, water, air, and fire in the manner of Greek philosophy, it alludes to foundational forces or “roots” that can be interpreted in this context:

Rabbi Berachiah said: “What is the meaning of the verse, ‘And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it separated and became four heads’ (Genesis 2:10)? This teaches that the primordial river splits into four heads, corresponding to the four foundational elements by which the world is sustained.” [Emphasis added] (Sefer HaBahir, verse 55, tr. A. Kaplan, 1989)

In this passage, the four rivers flowing from Eden are symbolically linked to the four foundational elements alluding to the classical elements.

Rabbi Amora sat and expounded: “What is the meaning of the four creatures mentioned in Ezekiel’s vision (Ezekiel 1:10)? These correspond to the four directions of the world and the four elements from which the world was created. They are the basis of all that exists, and through them, the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, is manifested.” [Emphasis added] (Sefer HaBahir, verse 95, tr. A. Kaplan, 1989)

Here, the four creatures in Ezekiel’s vision are associated with the four directions and the four elements involved in creation. This suggests a conceptual framework where the elements play a crucial role in the structure of the cosmos.

The symbolic association of the four elements with other quaternaries—such as the four directions, the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, and the four worlds in Kabbalistic cosmology—is a common theme in Jewish mystical literature.

The Zohar, the foundational book of Kabbalah, interprets the Genesis creation narrative by incorporating the four elements as instruments of divine action (Zohar, Bereshit, I, 31b–32a):

• Fire: Associated with the light created on the first day.
• Water: Connected to the waters above and below the firmament.
• Air: Involved in the separation of the waters and the formation of the sky.
• Earth: Emerging on the third day when dry land appears.

The Zohar also associates the four elements with four the four letters of the Tetragrammaton (Yud–Heh–Vav–Heh) (Zohar, Bereshit, I, 15a–17a):

• Yud (י) — Fire
• Heh (ה) — Water
• Vav (ו) — Air
• Final Heh (ה) — Earth

Rabbi Mosheh Cordovero and Sefer Hatemunah ( First Temunah, Dan, Joseph (Ed.), 1986) echo the Zohar’s association of the four elements with four the four letters of the Tetragrammaton:

The four letters of the Divine Name correspond to the four elements from which the world was created: Yod to fire, the first Heh to water, Vav to air, and the final Heh to earth. Through these, the Holy One, blessed be He, formed the foundations of the world. (Cordovero, Pardes Rimonim, Gate 3, Chapter 1, 2007)

Rabbi Chaim Vital says similarly in the name of the Ari:

Know that the four letters of the Tetragrammaton correspond to the four elements. The Yod, being the smallest letter, represents the element of fire, which ascends upwards. The Heh that follows signifies water, spreading in all directions. The Vav, a vertical line, corresponds to air, which connects and mediates between fire and water. The final Heh symbolizes earth, the recipient of all. (Rabbi Ḥaim Vital, Etz Ḥaim, Shaar 1, Anaf 1)

Regarding created beings, there are four elementals, and their mnemonic is alef-reish-mem-ayin, which stands for “Aish” [fire],“Ruach” [wind], “Mayim” [water], and “Afar” [dust]. They are themselves an expression of the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, as explained in the Zohar (Vaera 23b). From these four elements, which are hinted to by the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, all of physical creation was brought into existence. (Rabbi Ḥaim Vital, Sha’ar Hagilgulim, ch. 18, sec. 4, 19:1)

(ii)                Medieval Jewish Philosophy

The concept of the four elements becomes more pronounced in medieval Jewish philosophy, particularly under the influence of Aristotelian thought transmitted through Islamic scholarship. Prominent Jewish philosophers began to incorporate the elemental theory into their works to reconcile contemporary scientific understanding with Jewish theology.

Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), in his work “Book of Beliefs and Opinions” (Emunot VeDeot), refers to the elements as fundamental components of the physical world, aligning with philosophical perspectives of his time (Saadia Gaon, 1948).

Ibn Gabirol, also known as Avicebron (c. 1021–1058), proposed a unique metaphysical system characterized by universal hylomorphism, the idea that all beings, both material and spiritual, are composed of matter and form. Regarding the four elements he acknowledged the four classical elements as the basic constituents of the physical world. Each element consists of “matter” (chomer, the substrate) and “form” (tzurah, the defining characteristics), and through their combinations, they give rise to the diversity of physical substances. Ibn Gabirol extended the concept of matter beyond the physical, suggesting that even spiritual substances have a form of “spiritual matter.”

Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi (c. 1075–1141) states in The Kuzari:

All that exists beneath the sphere of the moon is composed of the four elements: fire, air, water, and earth. These elements combine and separate according to the natural order established by the Creator. (The Kuzari, Part V, Section 14 2009/ ca 1150)

Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1138–1204 CE), one of the most influential Jewish philosophers and legal codifiers, discusses the four elements extensively in “The Guide for the Perplexed.” He acknowledges the philosophical tradition of the elements and integrates it into his explanations of natural phenomena echoing the Kuzari:

The philosophers have made it clear that all the bodies beneath the sphere of the moon are composed of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. These elements are changeable one into another, and each possesses two qualities. (Maimonides, M., 1963/ ca. 1190, Part II, Chapter 30, p. 356)

Maimonides uses classical elements in the Aristotelian tradition, associating each element with two opposite qualities related to it (see supra).

Hasdai Crescas (c. 1340–1410/11) addresses the natural sciences and metaphysics, including discussions on the nature of the physical world, in his Or Adonai, where he challenges the Aristotelian conception of the four elements as immutable substances. He argues that the behavior of the elements and natural phenomena are ultimately governed by G‑d’s will rather than inherent properties. (Crescas, 1990)

(iii)              Midrashic Interpretations

References to the four elements can also be found in rabbinic literature and Midrashim, often in allegorical contexts that convey moral and theological lessons.

In Midrash Rabbah, the creation narratives sometimes allude to the elements as instruments of G‑d’s creative power:

Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aha: The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world from the four elements—Ruach (“wind,” “air”), Mayim (“water”), Aish (“fire”), and Afar (“earth”). (Bereishit Rabbah 12:11, 1939)

Rabbi Hoshaya said: The heavens and the earth were created from the four elements—fire, wind (air), water, and earth. From fire, the heavens were formed; from wind, the spirit of life; from water, the depth; and from earth, the lower realms. (Ibid)

Why are there three types of burnt offerings and one sin offering? This is compared to the four elements from which the Holy One, Blessed is He, created the world. The three are higher than one another, and the fourth is the lowest and heaviest of them all. And these are: the earth, which is the heaviest of them all, and against it, the goat was offered. The water is above the earth, the air, from which the wind is created, is above the water. And the fire is above the air, for fire is lighter than all of them, as it ascends to the sky. And a sign of this is when a flame is detached from the coals, it soars upwards. And so they said that fire surrounds the entire world, up to the sky. And corresponding to the fire, wind, and water, which are above, three types of burnt offerings were made. (Bamidbar Rabba, 14:12)

In the Bamidbar Rabba quoted above, the world for “elements” is tevoim (“natures”) as opposed more common term, yesodot (“foundations”).

Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, attributed to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (1st–2nd century CE), is a midrashic work that retells biblical narratives with homiletic interpretations. In Chapter 3, the text discusses the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, mentioning the four elements:

G‑d gathered dust from the four corners of the world and created Adam with the four elements: earth, wind (air), fire, and water. From earth, his body; from water, his blood and moisture; from wind, his breath; and from fire, his soul and warmth. (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, Ch. 3)

Midrash Tanḥuma is a collection of homiletic teachings on the Torah, named after Rabbi Tanḥuma bar Abba. In Parashat Pekudei, the midrash discusses creation and the elements:

The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world from the four elements: fire, wind, water, and earth. Each element contributed to the formation of man: fire gave the face its radiance; wind (air) gave the breath; water gave the blood; and earth gave the body its substance. (Midrash Tanḥuma, Pekudei, 3)

Other midrashim mention four elements in different context:

The righteous are sustained by the four elements that the Holy One, blessed be He, created: earth, water, wind, and fire. Just as these elements are fundamental to the world, so the righteous are foundational to the community. (Midrash Tehilim, 1, tr. Braude, 1959)

When the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to create the world, He brought forth the four elements from the void: fire, wind, water, and earth. He combined them to form the heavens and the earth, the celestial beings and the earthly creatures. (Midrash Konen, Section on Creation, 1853)

The world is sustained by four pillars, corresponding to the four elements: earth, water, wind, and fire. These elements are the foundation of all that exists, both above and below. (Midrash Hane’elam, Zohar Chadash, tr. Sperling, H., & Simon, M., 1934)

These passages illustrate the integration of the elements into Jewish exegetical traditions.

(iv)              Chasidism

The Baal Shem Tov taught about the importance of refining and elevating the four elements within oneself as part of one’s spiritual development. In Tzava’at HaRivash (Will and Testament of the Baal Shem Tov), a collection of teachings attributed to the Baal Shem Tov, it is stated:

A person must purify the four elements within himself—earth, water, air, and fire—each representing different traits and tendencies. By refining these elements, one transforms negative attributes into holy ones, serving God with all aspects of one’s being. (Tzava’at HaRivash, Section 2; see Buxbaum, Y., 1994)

In Keter Shem Tov (Crown of the Good Name), another compilation of his teachings, it is stated:

In every element and creature, there resides a spark of the divine. When one contemplates the unity of God within the elements of earth, water, air, and fire, one can ascend spiritually and draw closer to the Creator. (Keter Shem Tov, Part II, Teaching 88, Schochet, 2008)

The Maggid of Mezeritch expanded on the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings by delving deeper into the mystical significance of the elements and their correspondence to human faculties. He wrote:

The four elements are rooted in the supernal worlds and correspond to the divine attributes. By aligning one’s own elements with their spiritual sources, a person can achieve profound levels of communion with the Divine. (Maggid Devarav LeYa’akov, Section 44, Twersky, A., 1987)

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the Alter Rebbe, writes in his seminal book, Tanya:

The animal soul derived from the side of kelipah… is composed of the four evil elements… anger and pride emanate from the element of Fire which rises upward; the appetite for pleasures from Water, for water makes to grow all kinds of pleasure-giving things; frivolity and scoffing, boasting and idle talk from the element of Air; and sloth and melancholy from the element of Earth. (Tanya, Likutei Amarim, Ch. 1, 1984)

III.        The Four Elements in Modern Philosophy: Reinterpretations and Perspectives

The concept of the four classical elements—earth, water, air, and fire—originated in ancient philosophies as fundamental constituents of the natural world. With the advent of modern science, these elements were largely replaced by the periodic table and the understanding of chemical elements. However, rather than being dismissed entirely, many philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as contemporary thinkers, have reinterpreted the four elements symbolically, metaphorically, and phenomenologically.

3.    19th Century Philosophical Reinterpretations

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) incorporated the four elements into his philosophical system as symbolic representations of stages in the development of nature and consciousness. In his work Philosophy of Nature, part of his larger system in Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, Hegel discusses the elements as expressions of the dialectical process in nature.

• Fire: Represents pure activity and transformation, the process of becoming.
• Air: Symbolizes universality and the medium through which life is sustained.
• Water: Denotes fluidity and the basis for organic life.
• Earth: Embodies solidity and the foundation of physical reality.

Hegel viewed these elements not as literal substances but as metaphysical categories that reflect the unfolding of the Absolute Spirit through nature (Hegel, 1970).

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) referenced the elements in his metaphysical exploration of reality as Will and Representation. In The World as Will and Representation, he considers the elements as manifestations of the blind, striving Will underlying all phenomena. The elements are seen as primal forces expressing the insatiable Will. Natural phenomena, including the elements, are objectifications of the Will at different levels. Schopenhauer’s perspective integrates the elements into his pessimistic philosophy, where the material world is a product of irrational forces (Schopenhauer, A., 1966).

4.    20th Century Philosophical Engagements

Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961), the founder of analytical psychology, integrated the four elements into his theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious.

• Earth: Associated with sensation—the tangible and practical aspects of experience.
• Water: Linked to feeling—emotions and the subconscious.
• Air: Corresponds to thinking—intellect and reasoning.
• Fire: Represents intuition—insight and inspiration.

These associations helped Jung explain psychological patterns and symbolic content in dreams, myths, and alchemy. He viewed the elements as fundamental psychic symbols that manifest universally across cultures (Jung, C. G., 1971).

Gaston Bachelard (1884–1962), a philosopher of science and literary critic, conducted a phenomenological study of the elements as they relate to human imagination and creativity.

• “The Psychoanalysis of Fire” (1938): Explores fire as a symbol of passion, desire, and transformation.
• “Water and Dreams” (1942): Examines water as a symbol of the subconscious, purity, and depth.
• “Air and Dreams” (1943): Investigates air as a symbol of freedom, movement, and spirituality.
• “Earth and Reveries of Will” (1948): Discusses earth as a symbol of stability, willpower, and materiality.

Bachelard argued that the elements profoundly influence poetic imagery and thought processes. He emphasized the subjective experience of the elements and their role in shaping human consciousness (Bachelard, 1983).

Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) engaged with elemental concepts in his existential and ontological inquiries, particularly through the notion of the “Fourfold” (Geviert), which, while not identical to the classical elements, resonates with their foundational aspects. The Fourfold consists of Earth, Sky, Divinities, and Mortals. In Building Dwelling Thinking, Heidegger discusses how humans dwell within the interplay of these four dimensions. Earth provides grounding and sustenance, akin to the classical element. Heidegger’s exploration emphasizes the elements as integral to human existence and our relationship with being (Heidegger, M., 1971).

Contemporary philosophical perspectives focus more on environmental philosophy, eco-phenomenology, and archetypal and symbolic Interpretation.^[2]

IV.        Scientific Reinterpretations of the Four Classical Elements

The ancient Greeks conceived the idea of the four classical elements—earth, water, air, and fire—as the fundamental components of all matter, somewhat analogous to how we think of chemical elements today. This theory was prevalent for over two thousand years, approximately 2,200 years.

In the 16th century, Paracelsus (1493–1541) introduced the concept of the tria prima—mercury, sulfur, and salt—as fundamental principles. These principles challenged the classical elements but did not entirely displace them (Paracelsus, 1894). Paracelsus’s tria prima were considered the essential properties of matter, representing volatility, combustibility, and solidity, respectively.

The significant shift came with Antoine Lavoisier (1743–1794), often referred to as the “Father of Modern Chemistry.” In his work “Traité Élémentaire de Chimie” (Elementary Treatise of Chemistry) published in 1789, Lavoisier redefined the concept of elements (Lavoisier, 1789). He identified 33 substances that he considered elements because they could not be broken down further by chemical means, effectively moving away from the four classical elements. Lavoisier’s work laid the foundation for modern chemical nomenclature and introduced the law of conservation of mass.

The shift from classical to chemical elements represents a transformation in understanding the fundamental constituents of matter. Dmitri Mendeleev’s development of the periodic table in 1869 further organized these elements based on atomic weight (later refined to atomic number) and chemical properties, offering a systematic framework that replaced the classical model (Mendeleev, 1869). Mendeleev’s periodic table not only organized known elements but also predicted the existence and properties of elements yet to be discovered. Today, the periodic table includes 118 elements. This work effectively relegated the four classical elements to the annals of history as the modern scientific understanding of chemical elements and their interactions became firmly established.

Nevertheless, the four foundations (arba yesodot) continued to be taken seriously in Jewish sources—primarily in Kabbalistic and Chasidic literature. The reason is simple: once these concepts were discussed in such important sources as Sefer Yetzirah, Zohar, Maimonides, or Ari, they became enshrined in the Jewish ethos. Therefore, it behooves us to attempt to reinterpret the classical elements within a contemporary scientific framework.

1.    Elements and States of Matter

When I first encountered four classical elements in Jewish sources, I thought that the most direct scientific interpretation of the four classical elements would be the four states of matter:

• Earth: Solid
• Water: Liquid
• Air: Gas
• Fire: Plasma

Figure 1. Phase diagram of water as a log-lin chart with pressure from 1 Pa to 1 TPa and temperature from 0 K to 650 K. Credit: Cmglee – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, ttps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34865054

Solids are characterized by structural rigidity and resistance to changes in shape or volume and can allegorically represent the solidity and stability associated with the earth, which itself is solid. In a solid, particles (atoms or molecules) are closely packed together. The forces between particles are so strong that the particles can only vibrate, unable to move freely. As a result, a solid object has a definite shape and volume. Solids are stable and can only change their shape by an outside force. Thus, the classical element of Earth can serve as an allegory of the solid state of matter.

Figure 2. Simple illustration of particles in solid state closely packed together. Credit: by Julio Miguel A Enriquez and Monica Muñoz – Wiki Learning Tec de Monterrey, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64130757

Liquids have a definite volume but take the shape of their container.  Liquids reflect the fluidity and adaptability of water, which as the most common liquid we know. Thus, it is logical to associate the element of Water with the solid state of mater.

Figure 3. Simple illustration of particles in the liquid state – they can flow and change shape. Credit: By Julio Miguel A Enriquez and Monica Muñoz – Wiki Learning Tec de Monterrey, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64130758

Gases expand to fill their container, embodying the expansiveness and invisibility of air, which is comprised of several gasses. Thus, it is natural to associate the element of Air with the gas state of matter.

Figure 4. Simple illustration of particles in the gas state. Credit: By Julio Miguel A Enriquez and Monica Muñoz – Wiki Learning Tec de Monterrey, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64130770

Plasma is an ionized gas with free-moving charged particles, often emitting light and heat. Fire is an ionized gas, so fire is plasma. The recognition of plasma as a distinct state of matter is primarily due to the work of Irving Langmuir (Chen, F. F., 1984). Thus, it is easy to draw a parallel between the element of Fire and the plasma state of matter.

Figure 5. Artificial plasma produced in the air by Jacob’s Ladder. The high potential difference between the two rods ionize particles in the air, creating a plasma. Credit: By Chocolateoak – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12260232

The interpretation of four elements as four states of matter is so straightforward that it is almost obvious to any physicist. No wonder I was not the only one to think about it. In 2011, Mitsuru Kikuchi wrote:

Empedocles (495–435 BC) proposed that the world was made of earth, water, air, and fire, which may correspond to solid, liquid, gas, and weakly ionized plasma. Surprisingly, this idea may catch the essence. (Kikuchi, Mitsuru, 2011)

(Although, I thougt of it 29 years before Kikuchi, but so, probably, many other people and, linkely, some of them thought of it before me. But it was Kikuchi who published it, so he deserves the credit.)

This modern interpretation fits perfectly well with the names of the classical elements. Notwithstanding the attractiveness of this modern interpretation, several objections to this parallel can be raised that we need to address.

The first possible objection to using classical elements as metaphors for states of matter could be raised on the grounds that water is an anomalous liquid. When a solid is heated above its melting point (at pressures higher than the substance’s triple point), it becomes liquid. The volume of the substance in its liquid form is typically smaller than in its solid form. Water, however, is exceptional. In its solid state (ice), water occupies a greater volume than in its liquid state.^[2] This is readily demonstrated when a sealed glass bottle of water shatters in a freezer as the water expands during freezing. However, this objection would only be valid if we interpreted the element of Water literally, as ancient Greeks did. In our interpretation, the classical element of Water serves as a symbolic representation of the liquid state of matter, not water (H₂O) per se. Thus, the anomalous behavior of H₂O does not weaken the metaphor.

A second possible objection is that the four classical states—solid, liquid, gas, and plasma—represent only a subset of known states of matter. Beyond these commonly observable states, there exist intermediate states such as liquid crystals, as well as exotic states that emerge under extreme conditions: Bose-Einstein condensates and Fermionic condensates (at extremely low temperatures), neutron-degenerate matter (at extreme densities), and quark-gluon plasma (at extremely high energies). This multiplicity of states appears to undermine the four-element metaphor.

However, this objection is not fatal. After all, the parallel between four classical elements and the four states of matter is only a metaphor. Every metaphor goes only so far. It is an allegory, which means to illustrate one concept by means of a comparison to another more familiar concept. In trying to understand the meaning of the four classical elements in the context of modern science, we use the four classical states of matter that are familiar to all. The additional exotic states of matter never observed under normal conditions do not detract from the metaphor.

We should note parenthetically that the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, once mentioned that “Some hypothesize that they are four basic elements: positive, negative, antimatter, matter.” (Likutei Sichos, v. 38, p. 184). This hypothesis is problematic for several reasons: (a) it fails to align with traditional descriptions and names of the classical elements, (b) it cannot be meaningfully mapped onto the four letters of the Tetragrammaton with which classical elements are associated in Kabbalistic sources, and (c) it redundantly presents the matter-antimatter and positive-negative dichotomies, which are essentially identical. For instance, an electron (charge -1) and its antiparticle, the positron (charge +1), illustrate how charge reversal defines antiparticles.

Attempts to correlate the four classical elements with elementary particles are similarly flawed, given the extensive roster of particles in the Standard Model. This includes six quarks (Up, Down, Charm, Strange, Top, and Bottom), six leptons (Electron, Muon, Tau, and their corresponding neutrinos), four gauge bosons (Photon, W+ and W- bosons, Z boson, and eight Gluons), and the Higgs boson. Adding the hypothetical graviton—theorized as the carrier of gravitational force but not yet experimentally observed—further expands this list. The sheer number of elementary particles precludes any meaningful mapping onto just four classical elements.

This leaves us with four fundamental forces (fields): gravitational force, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. As I have written before,^[3] these can be mapped onto the four letters of G‑d’s ineffable name, the Tetragrammaton:

• Yud — Strong Nuclear Force
• Heh — Weak Nuclear Force
• Waw — Electromagnetic Force
• Heh — Gravitational Force

The letter Yud, essentially a dot, symbolizes the atomic nucleus and represents the strong nuclear force that binds the nucleus together. This correspondence is deepened by Yud‘s representation of the sefirah of Ḥokhmah—the initial flash of inspiration, the nucleus of an idea—paralleling the nuclear force acting at the nucleus of an atom.

The first letter Heh represents the sefirah of Binah (“understanding”), which develops and expands the initial inspiration of Ḥokhmah. This expansive quality mirrors the weak nuclear force responsible for beta decay, where a single particle transforms into multiple particles, radiating outward.

The letter Waw (or Vav), written in Hebrew as a vertical line, naturally represents a vector, aligning with the vector nature of electromagnetic force. Furthermore, Waw‘s numerical value of 6 represents the six midot (Ḥesed, Gevurah, Tiferet, Netsaḥ, Hod, Yesod). This correspondence is remarkably reflected in Maxwell’s electrodynamics, where the electromagnetic field tensor (Fμν) has six independent components.

The final letter Heh corresponds to the sefirah of Malkhut. Just as Malkhut is associated with Earth, our primary experience of gravitational force is through Earth’s attraction. This natural connection establishes the correspondence between the final Heh and gravitational force.

Let us recall the correspondence between the four letters of the Tetragrammaton and the four classical elements as found in Kabbalistic sources (Zohar, Bereshit, I, 15a–17a):

• Yud (י) — Fire (Aish)
• Heh (ה) — Water (Maim)
• Vav (ו) — Air (Ruach)
• Final Heh (ה) — Earth (Afar)

Through the letters of the Tetragrammaton, we can now establish a direct connection between the four fundamental forces and the four classical elements:

Tetragrammaton	Four Elements	Four Fundamental Forces
Yud (י)	Fire (Aish)	Strong Nuclear Force
Heh (ה)	Water (Maim)	Weak Nuclear Force
Vav (ו)	Air (Ruach)	Electromagnetic Force
Final Heh (ה)	Earth (Afar)	Gravitational Force

The parallels between the four classical elements and the four fundamental forces become more compelling when we consider the symbolic and metaphoric associations inherent in each. By aligning the qualities and roles of each element with those of the corresponding fundamental force, we find a meaningful correspondence that bridges ancient wisdom and modern scientific understanding.

Fire (Aish) and Strong Nuclear Force: Fire is often associated with intense energy, heat, and light. It has the power to transform substances, fuse materials, and bring about significant change. The element of Fire represents the most energetic and transformative classical element. Similarly, the strong nuclear force is the most powerful of all forces (roughly 137 times stronger than electromagnetic force, 10⁶ times stronger than weak nuclear force, and 10³⁹ times stronger than gravitational force). Strong force binds protons and neutrons together in the atomic nucleus, overcoming the electromagnetic repulsion between positively charged protons. Both fire and the strong nuclear force represent concentrated energy. Just as fire binds materials through heat and can transform substances (e.g., melting and forging metals), the strong nuclear force binds the core particles of matter, holding the nucleus together and allowing the existence of atoms. Fire has the dual ability to create (e.g., providing heat and enabling cooking) and to destroy (e.g., causing conflagrations). The strong nuclear force is responsible for both the stability of nuclei and, when overcome (as in nuclear reactions), the release of tremendous amounts of energy (e.g., in nuclear power or nuclear weapons). Fire’s transformative and potentially destructive nature mirrors the strong nuclear force’s capacity to hold nuclei together and release energy during nuclear reactions.

Water (Maim) and Weak Nuclear Force: Water represents flow and transformation (e.g., dissolving substances, changing states). The weak nuclear force facilitates radioactive decay—a process of transformation where subatomic particles change their nature (as in beta decay, where neutrons transform into protons, electrons, and antineutrinos). Both water and the weak nuclear force embody the motion of transformation. Both water and the weak nuclear force facilitate transformation and change at a fundamental level. Water is essential for all known forms of life, acting as a solvent and medium for biological processes. The weak nuclear force is key to stellar nucleosynthesis, the process by which stars produce heavier elements that are fundamental to life. Both water and the weak nuclear force are integral to the creation and sustenance of life.

Air (Ruach) and Electromagnetic Force: Air permeates space and carries waves—disturbances in air pressure propagating as sound. Similarly, electromagnetic force—disturbances in the electromagnetic field—propagates through space as waves, carrying light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation. Both air and electromagnetic force are carriers of waves that transmit information and energy. When we speak, our voice is mediated by the air. Similarly, when speech is broadcasted via radio signal, it is mediated by electromagnetic field. Both air and electromagnetic forces serve as universal mediators of interaction and communication. Air is invisible, but its presence and effects (wind, weather) are observable. The electromagnetic force is invisible but evident through phenomena like light, magnetism, and electric currents. In Hebrew, “Ruach” means both “wind” and “spirit,” “breath,” or the emotional faculty of the soul. Electricity and electromagnetism are vital for biological functions. Nerve electric impulses that conduct the sensations of pain or pleasure are felt by the ruach—the emotional faculty of the soul.  and brain activity. Brainwaves that synchronize and coordinate neuronal activity in the brain are electromagnetic waves. Mitochondria, the intracellular electric plant, convert chemical energy into electrical energy that powers all metabolic activities in live cells. Thus, Air as the breath of life corresponds to electromagnetism’s role in enabling life processes.

Earth (Afar) and Gravitational Force: Earth symbolizes solidity, grounding, and the foundation upon which life exists. The gravitational force is the attraction between masses, forming planets, stars, and galaxies and providing the structural framework for the universe by governing their motion. Earth can be seen as the stable foundation that corresponds to gravity’s role in maintaining the structure and order of the cosmos. Earth represents the most tangible, material element. Gravity is the force most associated with physical matter and is universally attractive. Both the element of Earth and gravitational force represent the fundamental grounding of physical reality. Earth is kept in its position by gravitational attraction to the sun. We are kept on Earth due to gravitational attraction to our planet.

Whereas the connection between the element of Earth (and the second letter Heh in the Tetragrammaton) makes sense, mapping the other three forces on the other elements (and the first three letters of the Tetragrammaton) is somewhat arbitrary and less than satisfactory. According to a well-known principle in Kabbalah, which holds that all four correspond to the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, it makes good sense to link four fundamental forces with the four letters of the Tetragrammaton. The justification for the precise alignment, however, requires further thought.

V.           Four Elements as Four Developmental Stages

I propose a novel interpretation of the arba yesodot (four foundations) as developmental stages. In Kabbalistic thought, four foundations correspond to the four letters of the Tetragrammaton (Y-H-W-H), which in turn correspond to the four worlds in the Seder Hishtalshelut (the “chain-like order” of created worlds). By exploring these parallels, we can propose a novel interpretation of the four foundations (elements) as representing four developmental stages in the formation of physical reality, aligning ancient wisdom with contemporary scientific understanding.

The four letters of the Tetragrammaton represent four developmental stages of creation called seder hishtalshelut (“chain-like order [of created worlds]). These for stages are:

1. Atsilut – the world of Emanation
2. Beriah – the world of Creation
3. Yetsirah – the world of Formation
4. Assiah – the world of Action

These four worlds correspond to the four letters of the Tetragrammaton:

Letter of the Tetragrammaton	World of the Seder Hishtalshelut
Yud (י)	Atsilut (Emanation)
Heh (ה)	Beriah (Creation)
Vav (ו)	Yetsirah (Formation)
Final Heh (ה)	Assiah (Action)

These stages constitute the Seder Hishtalshelut, the descending chain of worlds through which Divine energy becomes progressively more concealed, allowing for the emergence of finite reality.

Atsilut (Emanation) is a purely spiritual world filled with Ohr Ain Sof (the Light of the Infinite). Creation begins in the world of Beriah (Creation), takes shape in the world of Yetzirah (Formation), and is finally actualized in a tangible physical form in the world of Assiah (Action). Each “lower” world is progressively coarser and more tangible.

As I discussed in my essay “What Is a Soul? I. The Spiritual vs. the Material” (Poltorak, 2021), the difference between spiritual and physical is the emergence of spatio-temporal limitations. With this in mind, let us analyze the nature of spatial limitation in four classical elements understood as four states of matter.

Solid matter exhibits the greatest spatial limitations, symbolizing the most concrete manifestation of matter. A solid body has definite position in space, it has volume, density, and geometric form (shape). This most coarse form of matter corresponds to the element of Afar (Earth) to the lowest world of the seder hishtalshelut, the world of Assiah (Action). Just as solids are the most substantial state of matter, Asiyah represents the full actualization of creation in physical form.

Liquids are less spatially defined. While they maintain their volume and density, they lose defined shape and defined position in space, conforming to their container. This state of matter corresponds to the element of Mayim (Water) and to the world of Yetsirah (Formation). Just like liquids take the shape of a container (kli). Yetsirah, dominated by kelim, shapes created reality.

Gas is even less spatially defined, having neither shape nor defined volume as it expands in all directions. Gas does not maintain its density or position in space^[4] and is typically invisible. Being less tangible than liquids and solids, gas is ethereal—the least coarse form of matter. This state of matter corresponds to the element of Ruach (Air) and to Beriah (Creation), which allows for the expanding of self-awareness—and the illusion of independence—of created beings.

Plasma, such as fire, is an ionized gas. While fire is the only natural form of plasma, we primarily experience it through the warmth and light it generates—neighboring parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (visible light and infrared radiation). Thus, fire is essentially experienced as electromagnetic waves—disturbances in the electromagnetic field. Therefore, I argue that the element of Aish (Fire) corresponds to a field rather than matter. Matter consists of fermions (electrons, quarks, neutrinos) which all obey Pauli’s Exclusion Principle—two fermions cannot occupy the same state (e.g., the same space, which is responsible for the solidity of matter). Field quanta are bosons that do not obey this principle. Fields are not matter; they represent our closest approach to spiritual substance. Let us be clear that it is not fire per se that represents the spiritual state, but rather fields exemplified by the electromagnetic field that manifests as light and heat. The physical fire is merely the most accessible manifestation of this more fundamental field-like reality. Accordingly, the element of Aish (Fire) corresponds to the most spiritual of the four worlds—the world of Atsilut (Emanation).

The progression from Atzilut to Asiyah represents a descent from most spiritual to least spiritual as well as from the least to the most spatially defined states.

Surprisingly, if we line up the classical elements and their corresponding worlds against the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, we get the same alignment that we find in the Zohar (Bereshit I, 15a–17a):

Tetragrammaton	Four Elements	Seder Hishtalshelut
Yud (י)	Fire (Aish)	Atsilut (Emanation)
Heh (ה)	Water (Maim)	Beriah (Creation)
Vav (ו)	Air (Ruach)	Yetsirah (Formation)
Final Heh (ה)	Earth (Afar)	Assiah (Action)

This correspondence emerged naturally from mapping states of matter in order of decreasing physical coarseness against the four worlds in their ascending order. That this mapping precisely matches Zohar’s teaching provides compelling evidence that this interpretation of the four classical elements as developmental stages aligns with Kabbalistic wisdom, bridging ancient mystical understanding with modern scientific insight.

This developmental interpretation offers several advantages:

1. It maintains consistency with traditional Jewish sources
2. It aligns with modern scientific understanding of matter and forces
3. It provides a coherent framework for understanding the relationship between spiritual and physical reality
4. It explains the progressive manifestation of spatial limitation in physical reality.

VI.        Conclusion

This essay has explored multiple interpretations of the four classical elements (arba yesodot), culminating in a novel understanding of these elements as representing developmental stages in the formation of physical reality. Through careful analysis of various frameworks—from states of matter to fundamental forces to developmental stages—we have sought to bridge ancient wisdom with contemporary scientific understanding.

While the obvious interpretation of the four elements as corresponding to states of matter (solid, liquid, gas, and plasma) offers an intuitive starting point, it faces several limitations, including water’s anomalous behavior and the existence of additional states of matter. Similarly, attempts to map the elements onto elementary particles or matter-antimatter pairs prove inadequate due to their inability to maintain meaningful correspondence.

The interpretation of the four elements as fundamental forces offers a more promising framework, establishing meaningful connections between Fire (Aish) and the strong nuclear force, Water (Maim) and the weak nuclear force, Air (Ruach) and the electromagnetic force, and Earth (Afar) and the gravitational force. These correspondences reveal profound parallels between the qualities of each classical element and the characteristics of its corresponding fundamental force.

However, the most compelling interpretation emerges when we view the four elements through the lens of developmental stages, aligned with the Seder Hishtalshelut. This framework reveals a systematic progression from the most spiritual to the most physical, from the least to the most spatially defined states. The remarkable alignment of this interpretation with the traditional Kabbalistic mapping of elements to the letters of the Tetragrammaton (as found in the Zohar) provides strong validation for this approach.

The parallels we have uncovered between the four elements, the letters of the Tetragrammaton, and the worlds of Seder Hishtalshelut suggest that the ancient sages possessed profound insights into the nature of reality that continue to resonate with modern scientific discoveries. This convergence of ancient wisdom and contemporary understanding offers a path toward a more integrated worldview, where scientific and spiritual perspectives complement rather than contradict each other.

Rather than viewing the classical elements as merely primitive attempts to understand the physical world, we can now appreciate them as sophisticated metaphors for understanding the developmental stages through which reality manifests. This interpretation not only preserves the deep wisdom of our tradition but also enriches our understanding of modern physics, suggesting that the journey from the spiritual to the physical follows universal patterns that can be recognized across different frameworks of understanding.

This synthesis demonstrates that apparent conflicts between ancient wisdom and modern science often dissolve when we discover deeper layers of meaning in traditional concepts. As we continue to advance our scientific understanding, the wisdom encoded in ancient teachings may reveal even more profound insights into the nature of reality.

---

Bibliography:

A. Kaplan. (1989). Sefer HaBahir. Samuel Weiser, Inc.

Abram, D. (1996). The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language. In More-Than-Human World. Pantheon Books.

Aristotle. (1922). On Generation and Corruption (Joachim, H. H., Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Bachelard, G. (1983). Water and Dreams: An Essay on the Imagination of Matter (Farrell, E. R., Trans.). Dallas Institute Publications.

Bamidbar Rabba, 14:12.

Bereshit Rabbah: Vol. 12:11. (1939). Freedman & Simon.

Bereshit. (n.d.). In Zohar: Vol. A (p. 29b).

Braude, W. G. (1959). The Midrash on Psalms. Yale University Press.

Buxbaum, Y. (1994). The Light and Fire of the Baal Shem Tov. Continuum.

Casey, E. S. (1998). The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History. University of California Press.

Chaim Vital, Rabbi. (2008). Etz Chaim (Tree of Life). Torah Ohr Publications.

Chen, F. F. (1984). Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion. Springer.

Cordovero, Mosheh. (2007). Pardes Rimonim (Hoffman, E., Trans.). Yeshivat Ahavat Shalom Publications.

Cornford, F. M. (1937). Timaeus. In Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Crescas, Hasdai. (1990). Light of the Lord (Or Hashem) (Feldman, S., Trans.).

Dan, Joseph (Ed.). (1986). Sefer HaTemunah. In The Early Kabbalah. Paulist Press.

Eliot, T. S. (1943). Four Quartets. Harcourt.

Freeman, Kathleen. (1948). Empedocles (Freeman, Kathleen, Trans.). In Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Complete Translation of the Fragments in Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Basil Blackwell.

Gare, A. (2016). The Philosophical Foundations of Ecological Civilization: A Manifesto for the Future. Routledge.

Genesis Rabbah. (n.d.).

Halevi, Y. (2009). The Kuzari: In Defense of the Despised Faith (Korobkin, N. Daniel, Trans.). Jason Aronson.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1970). Philosophy of Nature (Miller, A. V., Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, Language, Thought (Hofstadter, A., Trans.). Harper & Row.

Hillman, J. (1997). The Soul’s Code: In Search of Character and Calling. Random House.

Hume, R. E. (1921). Taittiriya Upanishad. In The Thirteen Principal Upanishads: Vol. II.1. Oxford University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types (Baynes, H. G., Trans.). Princeton University Press.

Kaplan, Aryeh. (1990). Sefer Yetzirah: The Book of Creation (3rd ed.). Samuel Weiser, Inc.

Kikuchi, Mitsuru. (2011). Frontiers in Fusion Research: Physics and Fusion (p. 12). Springer Science and Business Media.

Lavoisier, A. (1789). Traité Élémentaire de Chimie. Cuchet.

Legge, J. (1885). Book of Rites. In The Sacred Books of China: The Texts of Confucianism. Oxford University Press.

Lloyd, G. E. R. (1968). Aristotle: The Growth and Structure of his Thought. Cambridge University Press.

Luria, I. (The Ari). (2008). Etz Chaim (Tree of Life): Gate 50. Yeshivat Shaar HaShamayim Publications.

Maimonides, M. (1963). The Guide for the Perplexed (Shlomo Pines, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.

Mendeleev, D. (1869). On the Relation of the Properties of the Elements to Their Atomic Weights. Journal of the Russian Chemical Society, 1, 60–77.

Midrash Konen, Section on Creation. (1853). In Found in Beit HaMidrash, a collection by Jellinek, A.

Midrash Tanḥuma, Pekudei (Vol. 3). (n.d.).

Paracelsus, T. (1894). The Archidoxes of Magic (Waite (Trans, A. E., Trans.). In The Hermetic and Alchemical Writings of Paracelsus (Vol. 2). James Elliott and Co.

Paz, O. (1991). The Labyrinth of Solitude. Grove Press.

Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer: Vol. Chapter 3. (n.d.).

Poltorak A. (2021, October 22). What Is a Soul? I. The Spiritual vs. the Material. Quantum Torah. https://quantumtorah.com/what-is-a-soul-i-the-spiritual-vs-the-physical/

Saadia Gaon. (1948). The Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Rosenblatt, S., Trans.). Yale University Press.

Schneerson, M. M., Rabbi. (n.d.). Likutei Sichot (Vol. 38, p. 184).

Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi. (1984). Tanya (Nissan Mindel, Trans.). Kehot Publication Society.

Schochet, J. I. (2008). Keter Shem Tov. Kehot Publication Society.

Schopenhauer, A. (1966). The World as Will and Representation (Payne, E. F. J., Trans.). Dover Publications.

Sperling, H., & Simon, M. (1934). Midrash Hane’elam (Zohar Chadash). In The Zohar. Soncino Press.

Twersky, A. (1987). Maggid of Mezritch: The Teachings of the Maggid. Paulist Press.

---

Endnotes:

[1] As Rabbi Kaplan writes in his commentary of Sefer Yetzirah, “Earth is not counted among the primary elements because it is considered a composite of Fire, Water, and Air. It embodies the qualities of the three and is formed through their interaction.”

[2] Water exhibits a remarkable anomaly: unlike most substances, its solid state (ice) occupies more volume than its liquid form. This unique property makes life on Earth possible. Due to this increased volume, ice has lower density than liquid water and therefore floats. During winter, when water temperatures drop in rivers, lakes, and oceans, the forming ice rises to the surface, creating a thermal insulation layer. This protective barrier allows the water beneath to remain above freezing point, preserving aquatic life. If water behaved like other liquids, ice would be denser and sink to the bottom, gradually filling entire water bodies with solid ice and making aquatic life impossible.

[3] See, for example, “Sukkot and the Standard Model” and “Joseph teaches Pharaoh a lesson in fundamental forces.” 

[4] The constituent molecules of gas do not have a fixed position in space as they move around chaotically in what is called Brownian motion.

---

[1] In ancient Indian philosophy, particularly within Hinduism and Buddhism, the concept of “five great elements” (Pancha Mahabhuta) is central. The five elements are:

1. Prithvi (Earth)
   1. Apas (Water)
   1. Tejas (Fire)
   1. Vayu (Air)
   1. Akasha (Ether/Space)

The five great elements of India included four classical elements of ancient Greece with the addition of the fifth element—Akasha (ether/space). The Taittiriya Upanishad discusses these elements in the context of cosmic creation:

From the Self [Atman] sprang space [Akasha]; from space, air [Vayu]; from air, fire [Tejas]; from fire, water [Apas]; from water, earth [Prithvi]; from earth, herbs; from herbs, food; from food, man. (Taittiriya Upanishad, II.1, as translated by Hume, R. E., 1921, p. 266)

These elements are seen not only as physical substances but also as principles that constitute the human body and the universe, reflecting a holistic view of existence.

In ancient Chinese philosophy, the concept of “Five Phases” (Wu Xing) represents dynamic processes rather than static elements. The five phases are:

• Wood (Mu)
  • Fire (Huo)
  • Earth (Tu)
  • Metal (Jin)
  • Water (Shui)

These phases aim to explain natural phenomena, cosmic cycles, and human affairs through patterns of generation and overcoming:

The five elements are water, fire, wood, metal, and earth. They are interrelated and serve to engender and overcome each other, thus bringing about harmony in the universe. (Book of Rites [Li Ji], in Legge, J., 1885)

The Wu Xing framework is integral to traditional Chinese medicine, astrology, music, and martial arts, emphasizing balance and transformation.

[2] Modern environmental philosophers have revisited the elements to address ecological concerns and the human relationship with nature. David Abram (b. 1957), in his The Spell of the Sensuous, draws on phenomenology to emphasize the importance of sensory experience and our connection to the natural world. According to Abram, the elements are mediums through which we engage with the environment. He Encourages a return to a more embodied and elemental experience of the world (Abram, 1996).

Edward S. Casey (b. 1939) explores how the elements contribute to our experience of place and space. In The Fate of Place, he discusses the role of earth and space in shaping human experience. Casey emphasizes the elements as fundamental to understanding place phenomenologically (Casey, 1998).

James Hillman (1926–2011), an influential figure in archetypal psychology, Hillman integrates elemental symbolism into his work. He views the elements as archetypal images that shape the psyche. Hillman encourages exploring these symbols to gain insight into the human condition (Hillman, 1997).

Arran Gare advocates for a revival of elemental thinking to counteract the abstraction of modern science. He suggests that re-engaging with the elements can foster a more holistic understanding of reality. Gare connects elemental philosophy with process metaphysics, emphasizing becoming over static being (Gare, A., 2016).

Authors and poets have used elemental imagery to explore philosophical themes.

T. S. Eliot in “The Four Quartets” uses the elements to structure his meditations on time, existence, and spirituality (Eliot, T. S., 1943). Octavio Paz employs elemental symbols to delve into identity and the human experience (Paz, O., 1991).

While modern science has moved beyond the classical notion of the four elements as literal substances, contemporary philosophers and thinkers have reinterpreted them as powerful metaphors, symbols, and analytical tools. The elements serve as foundational concepts in exploring human psychology, existential experience, environmental ethics, and the imagination. Far from being rejected, the four elements continue to enrich philosophical inquiry, offering insights into the complex relationship between humans and the world.