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.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
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)