Russell starts his five chapters on Plato by discussing the sources of his opinions.
Plato was a well-to-do aristocrat, related to various people who were involved with the regime of the Thirty Tyrants. He was a young man when Athens was defeated by Sparta and probably attributed the defeat, and also the death of Socrates, to democracy. Therefore it was perhaps not surprising that his political leanings were pro-Spartan and anti-democratic. Russell sets up the case that he was an advocate of totalitarianism.
Russell suggests that his philosophical influences where as follows. Firstly Pythagoras, from whom he derived much of his mixture of intellect and mysticism. Parmenides, from whom he derived his belief that reality is eternal and timeless and that change is illusory. Heraclitus, who influenced his negative doctrine that there is nothing permanent in the sensible world, which combined with Parmenides led him to conclude that knowledge is to be derived from the intellect rather than the senses. And finally Socrates from whom he learnt his preoccupation with ethical problems, rather than science.
Russell then outlines the reasons that he thinks these influences are connected to Plato's authoritarian politics.
Russell then discusses how Plato's conception of wisdom connects with his politics. Russell suggests that Plato argues that wisdom consists in knowledge of the good, that people who know what is good will inevitably do what is right and that these people should therefore rule.Russell questions whether this view of wisdom is realistic and, even if it is, how a constitution might ensure that the wise will rule. There is no group in society that has a clear monopoly on wisdom. Even if the wise are to be trained the same problem exists, how do we decide on the training or the trainers? This, Russell argues, is why democracy is essential.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Sparta
Russell includes a chapter giving a brief introduction to Sparta as it influenced later philosophy from Plato through to Rousseau, Nietzsche and National Socialism to name but a few.
In simplistic terms, Sparta is representative of the closed, utopian, totalitarian strand of Western political philosophy where the purpose of the individual is to serve the needs of the state. Athenian society in some senses can be seen as representative of the open, democratic and liberal strand. Of course the reality is somewhat more complicated than this but it is certainly possible to regard Western political history as a struggle between these competing views of society. It is important to realise that although many of the major philosophical figures of the golden age of Greek philosophy were Athenians many of them were sympathetic to Sparta. They lived in a period when Athens was involved in struggles with Sparta and at times Sparta seemed to be the more successful. Plato in particular was an admirer of Spartan society.
There are of course many modern resonances and historical threads in this. It has become conventional thinking to regard Western culture as somehow essentially individualistic, democratic and liberal. This argument is often made by totalitarian regimes such as the CCP in China when arguing that democracy is culturally specific to Western societies. The reality is that western political philosophy also has a deeply totalitarian thread and European civilisation has indeed produced some of the most anti-individualistic, undemocratic societies in human history, from Nazi Germany to Stalinist Russia. Although liberal democracies have become the dominant political system in Western countries in recent years this has come out of a long struggle with authoritarian trends in Western thinking. The totalitarian communism of the Chinese Communist Party (or its current incarnation as a totalitarian capitalist state), for example, is no less 'Western' than liberal democracy.
The particular attraction for intellectuals of closed, utopian solutions has also been a recurrent problem in the history of political philosophy. Russell argues that, particularly through the influence of the writing of Plutarch, Sparta has been an important influence on this trend.
In simplistic terms, Sparta is representative of the closed, utopian, totalitarian strand of Western political philosophy where the purpose of the individual is to serve the needs of the state. Athenian society in some senses can be seen as representative of the open, democratic and liberal strand. Of course the reality is somewhat more complicated than this but it is certainly possible to regard Western political history as a struggle between these competing views of society. It is important to realise that although many of the major philosophical figures of the golden age of Greek philosophy were Athenians many of them were sympathetic to Sparta. They lived in a period when Athens was involved in struggles with Sparta and at times Sparta seemed to be the more successful. Plato in particular was an admirer of Spartan society.
There are of course many modern resonances and historical threads in this. It has become conventional thinking to regard Western culture as somehow essentially individualistic, democratic and liberal. This argument is often made by totalitarian regimes such as the CCP in China when arguing that democracy is culturally specific to Western societies. The reality is that western political philosophy also has a deeply totalitarian thread and European civilisation has indeed produced some of the most anti-individualistic, undemocratic societies in human history, from Nazi Germany to Stalinist Russia. Although liberal democracies have become the dominant political system in Western countries in recent years this has come out of a long struggle with authoritarian trends in Western thinking. The totalitarian communism of the Chinese Communist Party (or its current incarnation as a totalitarian capitalist state), for example, is no less 'Western' than liberal democracy.
The particular attraction for intellectuals of closed, utopian solutions has also been a recurrent problem in the history of political philosophy. Russell argues that, particularly through the influence of the writing of Plutarch, Sparta has been an important influence on this trend.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Socrates c 469 bc to 399 bc
As Russell points out, it is of course difficult to really know how much we know about Socrates. He wrote nothing himself during a life which ended in him being condemned to death and executed at the age of around seventy but a great deal was written about him, mainly by two of his pupils, Xenophon and Plato.
Both of their accounts are problematic, Xenophon's perhaps because he was not much of a philosopher, and Plato's because he was too much of a philosopher and used Socrates as a vehicle for his own ideas. All of Plato's works are written in the form of Socratic dialogues where Socrates discusses and examines ideas with others, usually showing their assumptions to be false, and it is hard to separate where Plato is attempting to faithfully record the ideas of Socrates and where he is putting his own ideas into Socrates' mouth. For example, as Popper has pointed out, in The Apology Plato recounts Socrates being sentenced to death for, in part, refusing to stop teaching the young men of Athens. However, by the time we get to Plato's Republic he has Socrates arguing that in an ideal society education and philosophy should not be accessible to the young.
Russell takes the by now fairly conventional view that the earlier works of Plato, in particular The Apology, are most likely to more closely represent an accurate historical view of Socrates and his ideas and that the later works represent the views of Plato. He therefore focuses particularly on The Apology and keeps the later dialogues for his chapters on Plato.
The Apology tells of the trial of Socrates and his answer to the charges laid against him, which were that 'Socrates is an evil-doer and a curious person, searching into things under the earth and above the heaven; and making the worse appear the better cause, and teaching all this to others.' The prosecution alleged that Socrates was guilty of not worshiping the gods the State worshiped but introducing other new divinities, and further that he was guilty of corrupting the young by teaching them accordingly.
In reality, the trial also had a political context, in particular because of his connection to the aristocratic party and the regime of the Thirty Tyrants prior to the current democratic regime. Contrary to the idealised view of Socrates as a 'pure' thinker he fought in wars and was involved in the politics of the time. What his politics actually were, however, is the subject of some debate and one of the reasons that Socrates is so attractive a figure is perhaps because people can construct their own version of Socrates to suit their ideas. Popper highlights his disagreements with the regime of the thirty tyrants and firmly sees Socrates as fundamentally equalitarian, individualistic and democratic and attributes the totalitarian aspects of later works entirely to Plato. However, as Waterfield has pointed out, Socrates did have strong links as well as occasional conflicts with the aristocratic, anti-democratic camp in Athens being the teacher of Critias, leader of the Thirty Tyrants, and the friend and lover of Alcibiades who was also at times a key player in the arguing for, and establishment of, the Oligarchy.
At the trial Socrates was found guilty by a majority and he was then, as was usual, given the opportunity to suggest a lesser punishment than the death penalty; for example exile. The judges would then choose whether to apply the penalty demanded by the prosecution or that suggested by the defendant. In typically Socratic fashion, Socrates recommended a punishment of a laughably small fine and the court was so annoyed that he was, by some accounts, condemned to death by an even bigger majority than that which found him guilty.
During his speech Socrates explains the reason that he has spent much of his life annoying people by going around Athens questioning their beliefs and ideas. Apparently, the Oracle of Delphi was once asked if there were any men wiser than Socrates and it replied that there were not. Socrates claims that he couldn't understand why the Oracle had said this yet knew that a god could not lie. So he went around questioning men who were known to be wise to see if their ideas stood up to scrutiny and found that they were not, in fact, wise. Understandably he made many enemies by doing this. He concluded that the Oracle was correct, but only by illustrating that 'He, O men, is wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing.'
Socrates then answers the accusations of Meletus and argues that as good men are better to live among than bad men he cannot have intentionally corrupted his fellow citizens and if he has corrupted them unintentionally then he should be instructed by Meletus rather than prosecuted. He then answers the charges of impiety on the basis that the charge of atheism contradicted the original charge. It is important to understand that impiety was not a private matter as we would perceive it now but was seen as being likely to bring misfortune upon the whole community.
After the verdict he speaks movingly of why he is unafraid of death, ending with the words 'The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways - I to die and you to live. Which is better God only knows.'
Russell makes several points about Socrates. Firstly, that Socrates represents a movement away from the scientific to purely ethical concerns, the early Socratic dialogues being mainly attempts to examine and define ethical terms such as temperance, moderation, friendship and courage. Although Socrates claims that he is wiser than others only in that he knows that he knows nothing, at the same time he sees knowledge as essential. In particular he sees knowledge as essential for, and inevitably resulting in, virtue.
Secondly, the method Socrates uses is dialectic; seeking knowledge by question and answer and this method is useful for some things but not others. The method is useful where what is being debated is logical rather than factual and in particular it can show whether someone's arguments are logically consistent or not. Although it can be useful to determine whether an argument is logically consistent, it doesn't help us to discover new facts. For this, the empiricism of science is needed.
One problem with the dialectic approach is that it is perfectly possible for an argument to be on the one hand internally consistent and yet complete nonsense. One of the key problems with thinking about political and social issues is precisely the difficulty of applying empirical methods in those areas. In science, someone can come up with a seemingly rational, logically consistent argument and it can be tested empirically to determine whether the theory holds true in the real world but it is much harder to do this with political ideas. Western history is littered with internally logically consistent political ideas that have, however, proven to be disastrous when applied to in the real world.
Both of their accounts are problematic, Xenophon's perhaps because he was not much of a philosopher, and Plato's because he was too much of a philosopher and used Socrates as a vehicle for his own ideas. All of Plato's works are written in the form of Socratic dialogues where Socrates discusses and examines ideas with others, usually showing their assumptions to be false, and it is hard to separate where Plato is attempting to faithfully record the ideas of Socrates and where he is putting his own ideas into Socrates' mouth. For example, as Popper has pointed out, in The Apology Plato recounts Socrates being sentenced to death for, in part, refusing to stop teaching the young men of Athens. However, by the time we get to Plato's Republic he has Socrates arguing that in an ideal society education and philosophy should not be accessible to the young.
Russell takes the by now fairly conventional view that the earlier works of Plato, in particular The Apology, are most likely to more closely represent an accurate historical view of Socrates and his ideas and that the later works represent the views of Plato. He therefore focuses particularly on The Apology and keeps the later dialogues for his chapters on Plato.
The Apology tells of the trial of Socrates and his answer to the charges laid against him, which were that 'Socrates is an evil-doer and a curious person, searching into things under the earth and above the heaven; and making the worse appear the better cause, and teaching all this to others.' The prosecution alleged that Socrates was guilty of not worshiping the gods the State worshiped but introducing other new divinities, and further that he was guilty of corrupting the young by teaching them accordingly.
In reality, the trial also had a political context, in particular because of his connection to the aristocratic party and the regime of the Thirty Tyrants prior to the current democratic regime. Contrary to the idealised view of Socrates as a 'pure' thinker he fought in wars and was involved in the politics of the time. What his politics actually were, however, is the subject of some debate and one of the reasons that Socrates is so attractive a figure is perhaps because people can construct their own version of Socrates to suit their ideas. Popper highlights his disagreements with the regime of the thirty tyrants and firmly sees Socrates as fundamentally equalitarian, individualistic and democratic and attributes the totalitarian aspects of later works entirely to Plato. However, as Waterfield has pointed out, Socrates did have strong links as well as occasional conflicts with the aristocratic, anti-democratic camp in Athens being the teacher of Critias, leader of the Thirty Tyrants, and the friend and lover of Alcibiades who was also at times a key player in the arguing for, and establishment of, the Oligarchy.
At the trial Socrates was found guilty by a majority and he was then, as was usual, given the opportunity to suggest a lesser punishment than the death penalty; for example exile. The judges would then choose whether to apply the penalty demanded by the prosecution or that suggested by the defendant. In typically Socratic fashion, Socrates recommended a punishment of a laughably small fine and the court was so annoyed that he was, by some accounts, condemned to death by an even bigger majority than that which found him guilty.
During his speech Socrates explains the reason that he has spent much of his life annoying people by going around Athens questioning their beliefs and ideas. Apparently, the Oracle of Delphi was once asked if there were any men wiser than Socrates and it replied that there were not. Socrates claims that he couldn't understand why the Oracle had said this yet knew that a god could not lie. So he went around questioning men who were known to be wise to see if their ideas stood up to scrutiny and found that they were not, in fact, wise. Understandably he made many enemies by doing this. He concluded that the Oracle was correct, but only by illustrating that 'He, O men, is wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing.'
Socrates then answers the accusations of Meletus and argues that as good men are better to live among than bad men he cannot have intentionally corrupted his fellow citizens and if he has corrupted them unintentionally then he should be instructed by Meletus rather than prosecuted. He then answers the charges of impiety on the basis that the charge of atheism contradicted the original charge. It is important to understand that impiety was not a private matter as we would perceive it now but was seen as being likely to bring misfortune upon the whole community.
After the verdict he speaks movingly of why he is unafraid of death, ending with the words 'The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways - I to die and you to live. Which is better God only knows.'
Russell makes several points about Socrates. Firstly, that Socrates represents a movement away from the scientific to purely ethical concerns, the early Socratic dialogues being mainly attempts to examine and define ethical terms such as temperance, moderation, friendship and courage. Although Socrates claims that he is wiser than others only in that he knows that he knows nothing, at the same time he sees knowledge as essential. In particular he sees knowledge as essential for, and inevitably resulting in, virtue.
Secondly, the method Socrates uses is dialectic; seeking knowledge by question and answer and this method is useful for some things but not others. The method is useful where what is being debated is logical rather than factual and in particular it can show whether someone's arguments are logically consistent or not. Although it can be useful to determine whether an argument is logically consistent, it doesn't help us to discover new facts. For this, the empiricism of science is needed.
One problem with the dialectic approach is that it is perfectly possible for an argument to be on the one hand internally consistent and yet complete nonsense. One of the key problems with thinking about political and social issues is precisely the difficulty of applying empirical methods in those areas. In science, someone can come up with a seemingly rational, logically consistent argument and it can be tested empirically to determine whether the theory holds true in the real world but it is much harder to do this with political ideas. Western history is littered with internally logically consistent political ideas that have, however, proven to be disastrous when applied to in the real world.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Protagoras c 500 - 430 bc
Protagoras is used by Russell as the key figure in the sceptical philosophy of the Sophists. The Sophists were basically smart-arses for hire and made their living teaching young men from the Athenian aristocracy.The poorer citizens of Athens were suspicious of the rich both because of envy and because they were believed to be subverting both traditional beliefs and probably democracy also. We tend to look back at Greek philosophers as the founders of democracy but many were in fact the enemies of democracy, Plato particularly.
Russell compares the Sophists with modern day lawyers; intellectual defenders of the rich, hired and valued on the basis of their ability to make clever arguments, regardless of the rightness or otherwise of the cause they were arguing. Indeed, the Sophists were often hired to teach gentlemen how to argue in court, or wrote their court speeches for them.
Despite this, many Sophists were genuinely interested in philosophy. Protagoras is mainly known for his doctrine that 'Man is the measure of all things, of things that are that they are, and of things that are not that they are not'. This is interpreted to mean that each man is the measure of all things, and if they disagree, there is no objective truth that shows which is right, an essentially sceptical position.
Understandably this kind of unprincipled philosophy-for-hire was much sneered at by other philosophers, Plato for example and many more modern philosophers. Russell makes a couple of valid points about this; firstly the simple observation that it was easy for rich gentlemen like Plato to sneer at those who needed to earn a living. More importantly, Russell argues that there is a certain merit in following an argument wherever it goes, regardless of 'principles'. He contrasts it with the way Plato makes arguments, where he has already decided upon the principle he wishes to illustrate before he makes the argument. The questions he asks, although seemingly innocent, are clearly chosen to lead to where he wants to go and the whole argument is twisted to fit his preconceptions.
Russell compares the Sophists with modern day lawyers; intellectual defenders of the rich, hired and valued on the basis of their ability to make clever arguments, regardless of the rightness or otherwise of the cause they were arguing. Indeed, the Sophists were often hired to teach gentlemen how to argue in court, or wrote their court speeches for them.
Despite this, many Sophists were genuinely interested in philosophy. Protagoras is mainly known for his doctrine that 'Man is the measure of all things, of things that are that they are, and of things that are not that they are not'. This is interpreted to mean that each man is the measure of all things, and if they disagree, there is no objective truth that shows which is right, an essentially sceptical position.
Understandably this kind of unprincipled philosophy-for-hire was much sneered at by other philosophers, Plato for example and many more modern philosophers. Russell makes a couple of valid points about this; firstly the simple observation that it was easy for rich gentlemen like Plato to sneer at those who needed to earn a living. More importantly, Russell argues that there is a certain merit in following an argument wherever it goes, regardless of 'principles'. He contrasts it with the way Plato makes arguments, where he has already decided upon the principle he wishes to illustrate before he makes the argument. The questions he asks, although seemingly innocent, are clearly chosen to lead to where he wants to go and the whole argument is twisted to fit his preconceptions.
Leucippus & Democritus (Atomists) c 430 bc
Russell argues that it is difficult to separate Leucippus and Democritus because they were generally mentioned together and cross-attributed. Leucippus was earlier, with Democritus in fact a contemporary of Socrates and the Sophists (Russell discusses him earlier because of his link with Leucippus).
They were atomists; they believed that everything was composed of atoms, which were physically, but not geometrically, indivisible. They thought that there was empty space between the atoms and that they were indestructible, always in motion and infinite in number.
Many of there contemporaries apparently criticised them for attributing everything to chance but Russell argues that they were in fact determinists. Russell argues that, in contrast to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, they sought to explain the world without the notion of purpose or final cause, asking the more mechanistic (and scientific) 'what caused this?' rather than 'what purpose did this serve?'. They attempted to reconcile the ideas of Parmenides with the observable reality of motion and change.
Democritus was a materialst; he thought the soul was composed of atoms and that thought was a physical process. He disbelieved in popular religion. He approved of cheerfulness, moderation, friendship and democracy and disliked sex, violence and women.
Russell argues that Greek philosophy decayed in some senses after Democritus, moving away from a scientific, imaginative discovery of the world to the scepticism of the Sophists and a focus on the study of how we know rather than on acquiring new knowledge, Socrates' emphasis on ethics, Plato's rejection of the world of the senses in favour of pure thought and Aristotle's belief in purpose. Although Aristotle and Plato were geniuses, Russell feels that they sowed the seeds of the later decay of philosophy.
They were atomists; they believed that everything was composed of atoms, which were physically, but not geometrically, indivisible. They thought that there was empty space between the atoms and that they were indestructible, always in motion and infinite in number.
Many of there contemporaries apparently criticised them for attributing everything to chance but Russell argues that they were in fact determinists. Russell argues that, in contrast to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, they sought to explain the world without the notion of purpose or final cause, asking the more mechanistic (and scientific) 'what caused this?' rather than 'what purpose did this serve?'. They attempted to reconcile the ideas of Parmenides with the observable reality of motion and change.
Democritus was a materialst; he thought the soul was composed of atoms and that thought was a physical process. He disbelieved in popular religion. He approved of cheerfulness, moderation, friendship and democracy and disliked sex, violence and women.
Russell argues that Greek philosophy decayed in some senses after Democritus, moving away from a scientific, imaginative discovery of the world to the scepticism of the Sophists and a focus on the study of how we know rather than on acquiring new knowledge, Socrates' emphasis on ethics, Plato's rejection of the world of the senses in favour of pure thought and Aristotle's belief in purpose. Although Aristotle and Plato were geniuses, Russell feels that they sowed the seeds of the later decay of philosophy.
Anaxagoras c. 500 - 428 bc
Anaxagoras comes at the beginning of what is seen as the great golden age of Athens under the rule of Pericles. Anaxagoras was probably brought to Athens by Pericles in order to educate and civilise the Athenians. The Athenians didn't always take kindly to being educated (as Socrates was later to discover) and when Pericles was growing old his opponents attacked Anaxagoras and prosecuted him for irreligious teachings such as that 'the sun was a red hot stone and the moon was earth'.
Anaxagoras thought that everything was infinitely divisible. He believed that all things contained some of each element, but that they had the appearance of that which they contained most of. Like Empedocles, he thought that there was no void, arguing that an inflated skin shows that there is air where there seems to be nothing.
He had particular ideas about the mind as a substance in living things which distinguishes them from inanimate matter. He thought that mind was the source of all motion and that it caused a rotation that was spreading throughout the world.
Anaxagoras thought that everything was infinitely divisible. He believed that all things contained some of each element, but that they had the appearance of that which they contained most of. Like Empedocles, he thought that there was no void, arguing that an inflated skin shows that there is air where there seems to be nothing.
He had particular ideas about the mind as a substance in living things which distinguishes them from inanimate matter. He thought that mind was the source of all motion and that it caused a rotation that was spreading throughout the world.
Empedocles c. 495 - 435 bc
Another somewhat contradictory figure, Empedocles was a democrat who also claimed to be a god, a scientist as well as a mystic. Like Parmenides, he wrote in verse.
In the area of science, he discovered air as a separate substance by observing that when a bucket is put upside down into water, the water does not enter the bucket and that therefore there must be something keeping the water out, namely air. He also discovered examples of centrifugal force, sex in plants and had a somewhat unusual theory of evolution. He also knew that the moon shone by reflected light, that it took light time to travel and had an understanding of eclipses. He founded a school of medicine. All pretty impressive, and seemingly in contrast to the more metaphysical Parmenides and Zeno.
He had a mystical side too though. He established earth, air, fire and water as the four elements, which he thought were combined by love and divided by strife in cycles, as opposed to Heraclitus' strife alone. He regarded the course of nature as guided by chance and necessity rather than purpose. He inherited many of his religious ideas from Pythagoreanism (according to Russell).
In the area of science, he discovered air as a separate substance by observing that when a bucket is put upside down into water, the water does not enter the bucket and that therefore there must be something keeping the water out, namely air. He also discovered examples of centrifugal force, sex in plants and had a somewhat unusual theory of evolution. He also knew that the moon shone by reflected light, that it took light time to travel and had an understanding of eclipses. He founded a school of medicine. All pretty impressive, and seemingly in contrast to the more metaphysical Parmenides and Zeno.
He had a mystical side too though. He established earth, air, fire and water as the four elements, which he thought were combined by love and divided by strife in cycles, as opposed to Heraclitus' strife alone. He regarded the course of nature as guided by chance and necessity rather than purpose. He inherited many of his religious ideas from Pythagoreanism (according to Russell).
Zeno
Russell doesn't mention Zeno at all although he is perhaps nowadays one of the best known pre-socratics, due to his paradoxes. His paradoxes are of the type that typifies a certain kind of logical smart-arsery of the "If a tree falls down in a forest......" variety. They're amusing diversions that don't really lead anywhere.
Zeno was a disciple (and reportedly also lover) of Parmenides and shared his penchant for tying himself in logical knots. His series of arguments were in support of Parmenides' doctrine that "all is one" and that the common belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion. Supposedly there were forty arguments in total but only a few have survived.
A thorough exploration is here: Stanford
And a simpler one here: Wikipedia
Zeno was a disciple (and reportedly also lover) of Parmenides and shared his penchant for tying himself in logical knots. His series of arguments were in support of Parmenides' doctrine that "all is one" and that the common belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion. Supposedly there were forty arguments in total but only a few have survived.
A thorough exploration is here: Stanford
And a simpler one here: Wikipedia
Parmenides c. 515 bc?
Unlike Heraclitus who thought that everything changes, Parmenides though that nothing changed. He thought that the world that we perceived with our senses was an illusion and that the only true thing was 'the One', which was infinite and indivisible. This is another of the threads later picked up by Plato. For Parmenides 'the One' was not the union of opposites, as Heraclitus thought, since he thought that there were no opposites, cold being merely 'not hot', for example.
His ideas about knowledge and truth led him to think that change was an illusion. Russell summarises his ideas thus:
"When you think, you think of something; when you use a name, it must be the name of something. Therefore both thought and language require objects outside themselves. And since you can think of a thing or speak of it at one time as well as another, whatever can be thought of or spoken of must exist at all times. Consequently there can be no change, since change consists in things coming into being or ceasing to be."
His ideas about knowledge and truth led him to think that change was an illusion. Russell summarises his ideas thus:
"When you think, you think of something; when you use a name, it must be the name of something. Therefore both thought and language require objects outside themselves. And since you can think of a thing or speak of it at one time as well as another, whatever can be thought of or spoken of must exist at all times. Consequently there can be no change, since change consists in things coming into being or ceasing to be."
Heraclitus c. 500 bc
Heraclitus seems to have been a fairly unpleasant person, contemptuous of both his fellow citizens and of most of his predecessors. Later philosophers commented on the obscurity of his writing style; even the likes of Socrates and Aristotle apparently found his work difficult to understand. The only predecessor he seems not to have completely despised was Teutamus because he had the admirable opinion that 'most men are bad'. He was an anti-democrat, believing that only force will compel people to act for their own good.
He regarded fire as the fundamental substance and thought that everything, like the flames of a fire, is born by the death of something else. He did think that there was unity in the world but that it came from the combination of opposites, from strife.
He believed in war, saying 'War is the father of all and the king of all; and some he has made gods and some men, some bond and some free.' In some ways he seems to be an early fascist.
Connected to these ideas about fire and strife was his conception that the world was in a state of perpetual change. Like Anaximander, he had a concept of cosmic justice which prevented the cosmic strife of opposites ever being concluded. Russell suggests that there are precursors of Hegel's synthesising of opposites here. According to Plato it was Heraclitus who said that 'You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you.'
He regarded fire as the fundamental substance and thought that everything, like the flames of a fire, is born by the death of something else. He did think that there was unity in the world but that it came from the combination of opposites, from strife.
He believed in war, saying 'War is the father of all and the king of all; and some he has made gods and some men, some bond and some free.' In some ways he seems to be an early fascist.
Connected to these ideas about fire and strife was his conception that the world was in a state of perpetual change. Like Anaximander, he had a concept of cosmic justice which prevented the cosmic strife of opposites ever being concluded. Russell suggests that there are precursors of Hegel's synthesising of opposites here. According to Plato it was Heraclitus who said that 'You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you.'
Xenophanes c. 580 - 480 bc
Xenophanes was a poet, Ionian by birth. There is some debate as to whether he was very significant, Russell and others don't rate him highly but Barnes feels he is 'one of the early philosophical geniuses of Greece'.
He believed all things to be made out of earth and water. He was a free thinker regarding religion and was dismissive Of man's tendency to imagine God to be similar to them. He believed in one God, unlike men in form and thought. He also made fun of the Pythagorean doctrine of transmigration. He believed it impossible to determine the truth in matters of theology.
He believed all things to be made out of earth and water. He was a free thinker regarding religion and was dismissive Of man's tendency to imagine God to be similar to them. He believed in one God, unlike men in form and thought. He also made fun of the Pythagorean doctrine of transmigration. He believed it impossible to determine the truth in matters of theology.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Pythagoras c. 570 bc onwards
It's hard to separate Pythagoras from the Pythagorean School which followed him as there are no direct writings of Pythagoras.
He was a mixture of mystic and rationalist. Even in his work on mathematics the motivation for his rational exploration of numbers was seemingly connected with a mystical numerology.
In terms of the Pythagorean 'religion', he believed in the transmigration of souls. The religion founded in his name by the Pythagorean order included such rules as abstaining from beans, not picking up what was fallen and rolling together your bedclothes when you rise so as not to leave the impress of the body.
Socially, the society he founded admitted men and women on equal terms, held property in common and deemed any discoveries they made as collective (and ultimately attributable to Pythagoras).
Russell argues that he was one of the inspirations for the concept of the gentleman, encompassing the valuing of contemplation over action, the idea that to observe was higher than to do and to contemplate higher than to observe. Russell also argues that it was this attitude that led to the development of pure mathematics, such thought being prestigious precisely because it was disconnected from the world of the senses. This led to an emphasis on the ideal rather than the real in much of Western philosophy. There are obviously connections with Plato here.
Of course it is mathematics for which Pythagoras is most well known. He believed that numbers were at the heart of everything and discovered the importance of numbers in music and shapes, which still influence our thought and language today. Of course he (or his followers) also discovered the proposition about right-angled triangles which bears his name. Geometry and mathematics remained an important part of Greek philosophy.
He was a mixture of mystic and rationalist. Even in his work on mathematics the motivation for his rational exploration of numbers was seemingly connected with a mystical numerology.
In terms of the Pythagorean 'religion', he believed in the transmigration of souls. The religion founded in his name by the Pythagorean order included such rules as abstaining from beans, not picking up what was fallen and rolling together your bedclothes when you rise so as not to leave the impress of the body.
Socially, the society he founded admitted men and women on equal terms, held property in common and deemed any discoveries they made as collective (and ultimately attributable to Pythagoras).
Russell argues that he was one of the inspirations for the concept of the gentleman, encompassing the valuing of contemplation over action, the idea that to observe was higher than to do and to contemplate higher than to observe. Russell also argues that it was this attitude that led to the development of pure mathematics, such thought being prestigious precisely because it was disconnected from the world of the senses. This led to an emphasis on the ideal rather than the real in much of Western philosophy. There are obviously connections with Plato here.
Of course it is mathematics for which Pythagoras is most well known. He believed that numbers were at the heart of everything and discovered the importance of numbers in music and shapes, which still influence our thought and language today. Of course he (or his followers) also discovered the proposition about right-angled triangles which bears his name. Geometry and mathematics remained an important part of Greek philosophy.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Anaximenes (Milesian School) c. 550 bc
Anaximenes though that air was the fundamental substance. He thought the soul was air, fire was rarefied air and water was condensed air which further condensed to earth and stone.
He thought that the earth was like a round table. He was well regarded in the ancient world and had an important influence on Pythagoras, but modern philosophers think Anaximander more impressive.
He thought that the earth was like a round table. He was well regarded in the ancient world and had an important influence on Pythagoras, but modern philosophers think Anaximander more impressive.
Anaximander (Milesian School) c. 610 - 540 bc
Anaximander thought that all things came from a single primal substance which was infinite, eternal and ageless and encompassed all the worlds. The primal substance was transformed into the substances around us and they could be transformed into each other. He had a concept of cosmic 'justice' ordering the cosmic strife of the elements.
He believed in evolution, both of the world and the animal kingdom and thought that man, like all animals, was descended from fishes.
He also thought that the earth was a cylinder, that the sun was as large (or much larger) than the earth.
Quite perceptive it seems, or maybe just lucky?
(Barnes dates him slightly earlier than Thales based on dates given by later philosophers but he was reportedly a student of Thales)
He believed in evolution, both of the world and the animal kingdom and thought that man, like all animals, was descended from fishes.
He also thought that the earth was a cylinder, that the sun was as large (or much larger) than the earth.
Quite perceptive it seems, or maybe just lucky?
(Barnes dates him slightly earlier than Thales based on dates given by later philosophers but he was reportedly a student of Thales)
Thales (Milesian School) c. 625 - 545 bc
A native of Miletus, he worked on early geometry (which he may have nicked from the Egyptians). He believed that water was the original substance, out of which all others are formed. He also thought that magnets had souls as they moved iron and that all things are full of gods.
Supposedly he once successfully predicted a great harvest of olives by observing the stars and invested in olive presses in order to prove to his detractors that you could make money from philosophy.
Regarded as one of the founders of Philosophy, but Russell questions whether he is really that interesting. Like all the Pre-socratics there are no surviving texts, so everything we know is based on later comments by other people, mainly later philosophers or historians. In the case of Thales much of what we know about his ideas comes from Aristotle's commentary on him (see Early Greek Philosophy).
Supposedly he once successfully predicted a great harvest of olives by observing the stars and invested in olive presses in order to prove to his detractors that you could make money from philosophy.
Regarded as one of the founders of Philosophy, but Russell questions whether he is really that interesting. Like all the Pre-socratics there are no surviving texts, so everything we know is based on later comments by other people, mainly later philosophers or historians. In the case of Thales much of what we know about his ideas comes from Aristotle's commentary on him (see Early Greek Philosophy).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)