Thread: History of Western Philosophy

Originally Posted by Godwael

...but the basic idea that the greek philosophy started out as a way of moving away from mysticism is definitely a misconception.

This is getting very tiresome.

The ONLY one making that point here in this thread is YOU.

I shall repeat for the last time...

My opening essay specifically notes that mysticism is a core theme expressed by the 'pre-Socratics' and I have pointed out that this irrational attachment to mysticism is a core theme that will repeat throughout this essay series.

So Godwael, you are trying my patience. I'm not exactly the most kind-hearted and easy-going guy when face with this type of crap. If you want to play strawmen arguments against some philosophy teacher you once had go for it - but stop cluttering this thread with such nonsense.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

So Godwael, you are trying my patience. I'm not exactly the most kind-hearted and easy-going guy when face with this type of crap. If you want to play strawmen arguments against some philosophy teacher you once had go for it - but stop cluttering this thread with such nonsense.

Mmmmm, that's his specialty though.

Come on, guys. Let's please ALL keep at least this thread civil.
There's plenty of opportunity elsewhere to bash each other's heads.
This thread is to good to use it for that, IMHO.

Well, OK.

MM, you asked for an opinion on your text. It's really a rather good summary, as WOI previously said. However, I disagree on that one:

The key development here to take note of (besides the remarkable brilliance and prescience of Zeno & Democritus!) is the search for 'non-supernatural' explanations for natural phenomena. This itself constitutes the beginning of 'philosophy' as a branch of study apart from theology/divinity/religion.

For the reasons I elaborated above.

If this 'key development to take note of' wasn't the point you were trying to make in your text but really just a minor side aspect of your view on the matter, I will of course sincerely apologise for spoiling your thread with ideas completely unrelated to your intentions. I really mean that.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

This theme is a very strong one throughout the subsequent centuries and millennia and dies only with our modern age.

Originally Posted by IIIX

I am saying that because physicists are still looking for a way to unify all 4 forces, or at least it was the case last time I heard about them.

Originally Posted by Godwael

You're absolutely right about that connection. The idea of a GUT really goes back to the ancient greek philosophy, and it doesn't die with our modern age, as MM alleges, but it thrives, see physics. I've always been rather suspicious about that one. Just because we would like an unified concept to be there doesn't mean that there actually is.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. The idea that there's ONE universal force did in fact die when it became clear that there were four (electromagnetism, the strong and weak force and gravity). The quest to again unify these four into one is recent and still highly controversial (string and M-theory). Strictly personally I do think there will turn out to be just such a unification possible. It's nothing more than a slightly educated gut feeling though (pun intended )

[QUOTE=Godwael]Sorry about that one. Everyone does it, really, even my philosophy teacher at school, and he was rather smart. It took me a long time to get it out of his system
and since then I react slightly allergic to the topic...


QUOTE]
First of all. YES I did see your smiley. but second, Is this what you really meant??? If so I think it very cute. If not, I think it hilarious

"It took me a long time to get it out of HIS system"

Either way, VERY GOOD.

Originally Posted by T.F.B.M

Considered the importance of relativism in democracy, protagoras looks at an unbypassable presocratic philosopher.

True enough, even if he perhaps wasn't a relativist in the sense the more modern ones were. He wasn't like the sophists Plato spoke badly about either, I think. Interest in words and their meaning doesn't directly betray a specific philosophical worldview, after all. But I wonder if perhaps Protagoras really was one of the thinkers that rejected gods and mysticism alltogether, except as an influence on humans like any other phenomena. Seems possible, no?

Originally Posted by Godwael

Sorry about that one. Everyone does it, really, even my philosophy teacher at school, and he was rather smart. It took me some time to get it out of his system, and since then I react slightly allergic to the topic...

lol. But there's a big difference between saying that philosophy is the start of the search for non- supernatural explanations, and that it was the end of supernatural explanations altogether. (I've been to chemistry- classes - I know what I'm talking about!).

First of all. YES I did see your smiley. but second, Is this what you really meant??? If so I think it very cute. If not, I think it hilarious

"It took me a long time to get it out of HIS system"

Either way, VERY GOOD.

I meant it exactly the way I wrote it. Really. It took some time and he tended to cite Euclid in great lenght, among others, but I was able to demonstrate that Plato was an unashamed mystic and Socrates also used ratio to support claims that were rather mythical than rational. Yes, I disrupted lessons a lot.

The guy was an easy target, though. He claimed that Plato and Socrates had abolished mysticism and were, in effect, more or less modern scientists. He tried to tell me that Plato's Cave Allegory was actually the beginning of science.

Originally Posted by IIIX

Nice Mad_Michael. It must be frustrating to see so many attacks on the very beginning of a work, but I suppose it's normal when the subject is so vast

Indeed, tiresome.

Originally Posted by IIIX

Are you talking about these subjects in philosophy, or in science in general? I am saying that because physicists are still looking for a way to unify all 4 forces, or at least it was the case last time I heard about them. The substance is still being investigated, but it looks like it may be unique, too (strings?).

I have stated that 'natural philosophy' begins with the Greeks. What we call science and what we call philosophy were then the same things. The distinction between the two is 19th century. Now science and philosophy are 'separate'.

And when I said that "mysticism" was a key theme of the 'pre-Socratics' and was only abandoned in modern time, that is because my essay here addresses the history of western philosophy, not the history of western science.

Certainly our modern scientists haven't given up on mysticism. But our philosophers certainly have. Ergo, the impetus to mystisicm is gone from philosophy now.

Originally Posted by IIIX

Secondly, a remark: you talk twice about Magna Graecia, so you should made the detailed description the first time, not the second time, right?

Correct. I should have done so on the first instance. I only did so on the second instance since it occured to me then that many might not know the term that I consider 'common place' - so I added the explanation.

Originally Posted by IIIX

I'm looking forward to the other chapters!!

Hopefully the enterprise will run a bit smoother. I welcome any learned or substantive criticism (if any shows up).

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Certainly our modern scientists haven't given up on mysticism. But our philosophers certainly have. Ergo, the impetus to mystisicm is gone from philosophy now.

Would you care to elaborate (a bit) on the bolded part ? I simply fail to see what you're referring to ? Not string-theory I hope? I'll be obliged to start a thread on it in the science-forum then.