|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greek Philosophers
What do you think about the greek philosophers? do you really know about this subject or you really dont know anything? or you really dont care at all?
PS. You must excuse me but since I am from Greece My concerns about Greeke philosophy and the way Ancient Greeks acted are great and I would like to share with you my thoughts...
PS. You must excuse me but since I am from Greece My concerns about Greeke philosophy and the way Ancient Greeks acted are great and I would like to share with you my thoughts...
I know that there are Presocrats, Socrates, Plato, Aristoteles, and the Stoa. I also know something about Plato and Socrates. 
It is said that the entire Western philosophy is based upon Plato.
It is said that the entire Western philosophy is based upon Plato.I know some about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, but I'm always trying to learn more. Currently reading some Aristotle stuff. 
I have studied the ancient Greeks in a little depth so I know something about them. Pythagoras is a particular hero of mine, for example.
Though most people know that Cannon Koppernigk (Coppernicus) 'invented' the sun-centred universe, very few know that he actually did nothing more than re-hash Ptolemy's model from over 1300 years before. In some important respects Coppernicus's model was inferior to Ptolemy's, and both models were inferior in 2 important respects to the models of Aristarchus and/or Herakleides from around 300BC. It was the Ptolomeic model that established the religiously inspired nonsense of circularity as a given in astronomy - which put the science back generations. IMHO both Ptolemy and Coppernicus, despite achieving eternal fame in science, were third rate plodding pedants who were not fit to lace the boots of real heros of science like Aristarchus and Kepler.
Anyway, I'll not climb onto my hobby-horse here. Suffice it to say that it can be fairly remarked that the Greeks reached a level of philosophy and understanding of the natural world in around the third century BC that was not equalled, certainly not surpassed, for more than a 1500 years
Regards
Chris.
PS - Anyone interested in this period simply MUST read 'The Sleepwalkers' by Arthur Koestler (my copy is published by Penguin in paperback but there is certainly at least one hard-cover version out there as well).
Though most people know that Cannon Koppernigk (Coppernicus) 'invented' the sun-centred universe, very few know that he actually did nothing more than re-hash Ptolemy's model from over 1300 years before. In some important respects Coppernicus's model was inferior to Ptolemy's, and both models were inferior in 2 important respects to the models of Aristarchus and/or Herakleides from around 300BC. It was the Ptolomeic model that established the religiously inspired nonsense of circularity as a given in astronomy - which put the science back generations. IMHO both Ptolemy and Coppernicus, despite achieving eternal fame in science, were third rate plodding pedants who were not fit to lace the boots of real heros of science like Aristarchus and Kepler.
Anyway, I'll not climb onto my hobby-horse here. Suffice it to say that it can be fairly remarked that the Greeks reached a level of philosophy and understanding of the natural world in around the third century BC that was not equalled, certainly not surpassed, for more than a 1500 years
Regards
Chris.
PS - Anyone interested in this period simply MUST read 'The Sleepwalkers' by Arthur Koestler (my copy is published by Penguin in paperback but there is certainly at least one hard-cover version out there as well).
| mak_27 wrote: |
| What do you think about the greek philosophers? do you really know about this subject or you really dont know anything? or you really dont care at all?
PS. You must excuse me but since I am from Greece My concerns about Greeke philosophy and the way Ancient Greeks acted are great and I would like to share with you my thoughts... |
2300 years ago , they did some great job.
do you have another famous person up to now?
Many of the original Greek philosophers are known in everyday parlance. As well as Pythagoras these would include...Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aristarchus, Parmenides, Anaximander, Xenophanes, Heraclites, Philolaus, Democritus and Protagoras.
Most people will have heard of at least 2 or 3 on that list...
Although Plato and Aristotle are by far the most famous of these; they are also in many ways the least interesting and the most misinterpreted and misapplied of the early Greek thinkers.
I'll tell you a bit more about Plato if you like.
Plato was unwittingly responsible for much of the following thousand years of stagnation and double-think that the Western world entered after the Greek era. This period is commonly called the 'Dark Ages' and although that is not really a fair name, it does suggest the stagnation and lack of progress in any of the philosophical and scientific realms which the Greeks had made such a promising start with.
Neo-Platonism became the ruling 'philosophy' of Western civilisation from about 200AD up until around 1200AD when Aristotle finally regained favour and the world-view shifted to Neo-Aristotelian rather than Neo-Platonic.
Neo-Platonism basically held that the physical world is an illusion and that it is both impossible and a waste of time to try and gain any facts or knowledge by actually observing or experimenting because any such results will themselves be illusions and not worth considering. The only real knowledge comes from contemplating the world of Ideas and Forms - nature and the world around us is a trick and an illusion and should be largely ignored.
This interpretation of Plato was largely based on his parable of the Cave which many have heard of. In this story he imagined men standing in chains in a Cave with their backs to the mouth of the Cave, watching the play of shadows on the Cave wall. They think that this shadow-play is the whole of reality and remain completely unaware that the shadows are merely the reflection caused by the light of the real world outside the Cave. Plato likened this shadow world to the world of the senses - what we see, hear and experience is merely a reflected image of a greater reality which exists only in Concepts, pure ideas, and pure forms. This leads to introspection and a rejection and withdrawal from material reality and a retreat into increasingly abstract and inward thought. To put it in crude terms, the Neo-Platonists spent their time contemplating their navels and ended up disappearing up their own backsides. This was the pattern for the next millennium - tragic.
Personally I suspect Plato may have been a bit more flexible than his later supporters who took his name as the Neo-Platonists. Plato demonstrates a bit more 'humanity' in some of his other work (although his Republic, which still attracts much favourable comment, is to me a nightmarish and disturbed vision of the world).
There is no doubt that Plato loathed change which he associated always with decline and degradation. A lot of this might be symptomatic of the times in which Plato lived. By his era the truly great 'Heroic' age of Greek philosophy and discovery was in decline. Greece was by this time (end of the 3rd century BC) in decline. Constant strife, political corruption, economic stagnation all were leading to th eventual fall of Greece to the Macedonians. Because of this change was generally regarded as change for the worse. Plato reflects this in his philosophy with his rejection of empiricism and insistence on stability, constancy and mystical reflection. This was, of course, disastrous as a viewpoint to base a society on and the Dark Ages owe much of their shadow and murkiness to the Neo-Platonic philosophy that became the norm. Science and philosophy was essentially put on hold for over 1000 years and the Church stepped in to fill the gap in the interim. It was, quite simply, on of the most tragic episodes in the history of our civilisation and culture.
Regards
Chris
Most people will have heard of at least 2 or 3 on that list...
Although Plato and Aristotle are by far the most famous of these; they are also in many ways the least interesting and the most misinterpreted and misapplied of the early Greek thinkers.
I'll tell you a bit more about Plato if you like.
Plato was unwittingly responsible for much of the following thousand years of stagnation and double-think that the Western world entered after the Greek era. This period is commonly called the 'Dark Ages' and although that is not really a fair name, it does suggest the stagnation and lack of progress in any of the philosophical and scientific realms which the Greeks had made such a promising start with.
Neo-Platonism became the ruling 'philosophy' of Western civilisation from about 200AD up until around 1200AD when Aristotle finally regained favour and the world-view shifted to Neo-Aristotelian rather than Neo-Platonic.
Neo-Platonism basically held that the physical world is an illusion and that it is both impossible and a waste of time to try and gain any facts or knowledge by actually observing or experimenting because any such results will themselves be illusions and not worth considering. The only real knowledge comes from contemplating the world of Ideas and Forms - nature and the world around us is a trick and an illusion and should be largely ignored.
This interpretation of Plato was largely based on his parable of the Cave which many have heard of. In this story he imagined men standing in chains in a Cave with their backs to the mouth of the Cave, watching the play of shadows on the Cave wall. They think that this shadow-play is the whole of reality and remain completely unaware that the shadows are merely the reflection caused by the light of the real world outside the Cave. Plato likened this shadow world to the world of the senses - what we see, hear and experience is merely a reflected image of a greater reality which exists only in Concepts, pure ideas, and pure forms. This leads to introspection and a rejection and withdrawal from material reality and a retreat into increasingly abstract and inward thought. To put it in crude terms, the Neo-Platonists spent their time contemplating their navels and ended up disappearing up their own backsides. This was the pattern for the next millennium - tragic.
Personally I suspect Plato may have been a bit more flexible than his later supporters who took his name as the Neo-Platonists. Plato demonstrates a bit more 'humanity' in some of his other work (although his Republic, which still attracts much favourable comment, is to me a nightmarish and disturbed vision of the world).
There is no doubt that Plato loathed change which he associated always with decline and degradation. A lot of this might be symptomatic of the times in which Plato lived. By his era the truly great 'Heroic' age of Greek philosophy and discovery was in decline. Greece was by this time (end of the 3rd century BC) in decline. Constant strife, political corruption, economic stagnation all were leading to th eventual fall of Greece to the Macedonians. Because of this change was generally regarded as change for the worse. Plato reflects this in his philosophy with his rejection of empiricism and insistence on stability, constancy and mystical reflection. This was, of course, disastrous as a viewpoint to base a society on and the Dark Ages owe much of their shadow and murkiness to the Neo-Platonic philosophy that became the norm. Science and philosophy was essentially put on hold for over 1000 years and the Church stepped in to fill the gap in the interim. It was, quite simply, on of the most tragic episodes in the history of our civilisation and culture.
Regards
Chris
gone away
Last edited by twrchdim on Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Last edited by twrchdim on Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
gone
Last edited by twrchdim on Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Last edited by twrchdim on Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Interesting that you single out Socrates.
I have always believed, and still do, that Socrates was a ficticious character created by Plato to give voice to his ideas.
It is afterall much easier to write about someone who would drink a cup of hemlock for their ideals than to actually do it.
I have always believed, and still do, that Socrates was a ficticious character created by Plato to give voice to his ideas.
It is afterall much easier to write about someone who would drink a cup of hemlock for their ideals than to actually do it.
Do you know that Pythagoras used to write riddles for contemporary philosophers? It served as a brain tonic I guess. I read some of those, they were way too tough.
By the way without Pythagoras, we will be left with a gaping Hole in geometry. He proved his theorem with perfect mathemetics, you can call him the first real mathemetician in recorded history.
By the way without Pythagoras, we will be left with a gaping Hole in geometry. He proved his theorem with perfect mathemetics, you can call him the first real mathemetician in recorded history.
I am amazed that nobody has mentioned Archimedes, and if we're discussing geometry, then you can't leave out Euclid!
As for Socrates not existing, please share with us how you have come to this conclusion.
Regarding the "Dark Ages" which were mentioned here, one of the main causes of this would have been the destruction of the Library at Alexandria circa 391 C.E. The Library not only contained valuable works of the ancient philosphers, but apparently also some busts which would have been interesting if they had been around today.
The ancient philosophers gave a lot to the western world, much of which was lost for hundreds of years when the Library was destroyed and the "Catholic" church decided the course of science.
As for Socrates not existing, please share with us how you have come to this conclusion.
Regarding the "Dark Ages" which were mentioned here, one of the main causes of this would have been the destruction of the Library at Alexandria circa 391 C.E. The Library not only contained valuable works of the ancient philosphers, but apparently also some busts which would have been interesting if they had been around today.
The ancient philosophers gave a lot to the western world, much of which was lost for hundreds of years when the Library was destroyed and the "Catholic" church decided the course of science.
I would like to add that there is a disturbing trend in the modern world to write off all belief systems and spirituality when it comes to studying science and the universe. It seems that athiests have become just as fanatical as religious fanatics. I believe this to be a tragic error.
While we may have been hurt by blind faith and unquestioning religion, employing a knee-jerk reaction and rejecting faith and spirituality out of hand is itself a mindless and foolish reaction - much like changing the calendar after a revolution for example.
No doubt the consequences to humanity would be just as tragic as religious fanaticism. Many of the great men of history had some kind of faith or spirituality. So I think that there is a definite place for spirituality in the world, but not for unquestioning and intolerant religion.
Furthermore, another personal observation of mine is that democracy is not necessarily the best form of government either. I must agree with Socrates on that one.
While we may have been hurt by blind faith and unquestioning religion, employing a knee-jerk reaction and rejecting faith and spirituality out of hand is itself a mindless and foolish reaction - much like changing the calendar after a revolution for example.
No doubt the consequences to humanity would be just as tragic as religious fanaticism. Many of the great men of history had some kind of faith or spirituality. So I think that there is a definite place for spirituality in the world, but not for unquestioning and intolerant religion.
Furthermore, another personal observation of mine is that democracy is not necessarily the best form of government either. I must agree with Socrates on that one.
| Tiger wrote: |
| I would like to add that there is a disturbing trend in the modern world to write off all belief systems and spirituality when it comes to studying science and the universe. It seems that athiests have become just as fanatical as religious fanatics. I believe this to be a tragic error.
While we may have been hurt by blind faith and unquestioning religion, employing a knee-jerk reaction and rejecting faith and spirituality out of hand is itself a mindless and foolish reaction - much like changing the calendar after a revolution for example. No doubt the consequences to humanity would be just as tragic as religious fanaticism. Many of the great men of history had some kind of faith or spirituality. So I think that there is a definite place for spirituality in the world, but not for unquestioning and intolerant religion. |
That is a mischaracterization. The truth is not that "atheists" have become more miltant over time, it is that religion has found that it is being further and further marginalized and has attempted to go on the offensive by suborning science to suit their own beliefs. You'll find that it is a common appeal by more "moderate" religions that science and rationality do not contradict their claims, but rather somehow obliquely support them. You'll see it on these forums often - believers will make claims like that the current model of the formation of the Earth matches the Genesis account of creation, or that passages in the tanakh refer to things that cannot have been known at the time like the eggs in a woman's ovaries or uterus. Even many scientists who hold religious beliefs object to religious tampering in science and other branches of human knowlege. It is a serious problem these days.
Non-believers obviously object to having science and history books rewritten to satisfy the faith of a few, and thus the trouble starts. i guarantee you that if the religious refrained from attempting to subvert science and empirically-derived knowlege in general, there would be no conflict.
The reason the fight seems to be getting more and more vigorous is threefold. First, the amount of believers is decreasing, particularly in academic circles - thus there are more voices to object to religiously motivated tampering of knowlege. Second, religions are losing the power base they once had (in most places), which mean they have to fight more vigorously to maintain the power and relevance they once had in society - thus they are more inclined to dabble in fields that they would not have bothered to dabble in a century or two ago. Third, the knowlege we have accumulated by non-religious means has become overwhelming, and is demonstrating consistency and predictive power unparalleled in human history - thus it is being perceived more and more as a threat to religion, which invites more and more action and more desparate action against it.
Consider: what motivation would an atheist have for attacking any religious beliefs? If they've already determined that the belief can't be true, and they already have a huge amount of weight to rest their beliefs on, why would they care that a few people hold beliefs they see as entirely irrational? ... Unless... those people are attempting to infringe on things the atheist does care about - specifically human empirically-derived knowlege. Now, turn it around. What motivation would a religious person have to attacking "atheist" beliefs? Simple, they have invested a great deal - their entire lives - in their beliefs, often giving up pleasures and comforts for those beliefs. And then here comes a bunch of facts and knowlege that seriously challenges those beliefs. Conflict ensues.
Are there anti-theist atheists? Surely, just like there are anti-atheist theists. Are there atheists openly hostile to religion? Of course, just like there are religious folk openly hostile to atheism (and other religions not their own). But those are the minority extremist wackos in all cases. By and large, atheists have no real desire to antagonize the religious... but they will not tolerate religious tampering with non-religious human knowlege. However, the existence of non-religous human knowlege that contradicts religious beliefs is not acceptable to many religous folk. Thus the battle begins... but who really started it?
| Tiger wrote: |
| Furthermore, another personal observation of mine is that democracy is not necessarily the best form of government either. I must agree with Socrates on that one. |
i've always been most fond of Socrates' theory of what the duty of a philosopher is, although i admit that i've never been sure how much of that is actually Socrates' beliefs and how much is Plato's. The idea of philosophers as the metaphorical jesters of their age - rabblerousers shaking the pillars of society's beliefs to see what falls out - that's always appealed to me. Everyone needs a good swift kick in the ass sometimes, and philosophy as the boot in society's ass is something i can believe in.
 |