Philosophy Now Forum

In the Protagoras (§342a-343c), Socrates says:
“The most ancient and fertile homes of philosophy among the Greeks are Crete and Sparta, where are to be found more sophists than anywhere on earth. …they pretend to be fools.”

Then, he explains their methodology of hiding their wisdom and ends the paragraph with this:

“And in these states there are not only men but also women who are proud of their intellectual culture”.

Philosophy was started by the Doric Greeks. In 2007, I wrote a paper "Doric Crete and Sparta, the home of Greek philosophy" and it seems to be a whole lot of skepticism out there. I wrote a followup:

The Case of the Barefoot Socrates

I am hoping this settles the case. If philosophy is about first causes--shouldn't philosophy know its own origins?

As far as I can tell philosophy predates The Doric Greeks by several thousand years to the time of the Ancient Egyptian civilisation or perhaps earlier.

Also as far as I can tell, philosophy is about describing the knowledge about the world. First causes, whatever they may be, only entails a small part of that.

You need to read the link for I have answered that question.

The Doric Greeks migrated south in groups of three, i.e. "The Thrice-divided Dorians", and then they subjugated the indigeneous people in order to create a caste society. That means they had philosophy all their own. Philosophy did not originate with th Egyptians. When the Dorians instituted their "xenelasia" they only read their own literature and never read foreign literature.

Clinias;

Please consider my following responses.

Clinias wrote:I am hoping this settles the case. If philosophy is about first causes--shouldn't philosophy know its own origins?

I thought that philosophy was about love of wisdom. The word philosophy actually breaks down into "love of wisdom". Wisdom is truth, so philosophy is about truth.

First Cause is more about science, a branch of philosophy.

Philosophy began when the first person had an observation or experience and thought about it.

G

Clinias wrote:You need to read the link for I have answered that question.

The Doric Greeks migrated south in groups of three, i.e. "The Thrice-divided Dorians", and then they subjugated the indigeneous people in order to create a caste society. That means they had philosophy all their own. Philosophy did not originate with th Egyptians. When the Dorians instituted their "xenelasia" they only read their own literature and never read foreign literature.

Sorry but I generally don't read links.

If the Egyptians did philosophy long before the Greeks, it makes no difference what the Greeks did or did not do.

I thought that philosophy was about love of wisdom.

That's Plato's line. And when I think about it, I believe all Western philosophy started with Plato. And it hasn't progressed very far since then. It may not admit of progression at all, in fact. It may be the biggest dead end of all time.

Thales and other Pre-Socratics (should read pre-Platonics) were more like early scientists. Plato took a sharp left turn towards idealism. Thales was interested in how things worked and what they were made of. That's science.

Plato idealized Truth and Beauty and Wisdom and made them things that one could come into contact with - things one must come into contact with in order to truly know. That has nothing to do with science.

Gee, I don't think science is a branch of philosophy, because it is not a search for ideals. It has run along with science throughout Western history, often intersecting, running together, then splitting apart.

Wyman wrote:

I thought that philosophy was about love of wisdom.

That's Plato's line. And when I think about it, I believe all Western philosophy started with Plato. And it hasn't progressed very far since then. It may not admit of progression at all, in fact. It may be the biggest dead end of all time.

Thales and other Pre-Socratics (should read pre-Platonics) were more like early scientists. Plato took a sharp left turn towards idealism. Thales was interested in how things worked and what they were made of. That's science.

Plato idealized Truth and Beauty and Wisdom and made them things that one could come into contact with - things one must come into contact with in order to truly know. That has nothing to do with science.

Gee, I don't think science is a branch of philosophy, because it is not a search for ideals. It has run along with science throughout Western history, often intersecting, running together, then splitting apart.

The split between science and natural philosophy can probably be traced back as far as Galileo. However, the split was sealed with Newton.

Strictly speaking the Greeks did not do science, they were doing metaphysics.Many of them were rationalist philosophers, e.g. Plato. So yes, this would include Plato being an idealist. None were empirical philosophers in the modern scientific sense of the word.

First cause arguments are not scientific arguments, they are teleological arguments so they are classified as metaphysical. Science does not deal in first causes. If they do then it is considered highly controversial and not to be doing science.

Right, but were Thales and Democritus et al really looking for first causes, or rather what the world was made of? Certainly, a drastic split came with Galileo, Kepler and Newton. I just think that there was a strain of thought, at times at least, that was more in the scientific vein long before Galileo.

Thales predicted an eclipse and said everything was made of water. When they were looking for what things were made of (water, atoms, fire and earth etc.) they were trying, not to look for causes, but for what things are made of (sort of like primitive chemists or physicists). They were mostly non-mythological, non-teleological explanations.

Another later example is Archimedes, who engaged in something resembling science, rather than philosophy or just pure mathematics.

Plato never predicted anything and looked for knowledge of the good, the beautiful, wisdom, etc., - i.e. not what constituted 'the world.' His speculations in the Timaeus were more mystical and mythical than a real attempt at an explanation of the world.

Wyman wrote:

I thought that philosophy was about love of wisdom.

That's Plato's line. And when I think about it, I believe all Western philosophy started with Plato. And it hasn't progressed very far since then. It may not admit of progression at all, in fact. It may be the biggest dead end of all time.

Ouch!! If that is what you really think, then what are you doing in a Philosophy forum?

I was not referring to Plato or Western philosophy. I was referring to the definition of the term, philosophy: Per Wiki: "The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom". Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

Put simply, philosophy is the study of that which is real and true, and how we can know that it is real and true. So the first person who observed or experienced something, and tried to determine if that observation or experience was "real" and "true", was the first philosopher. There have been many philosophers, some acknowledged, other not acknowledged, but all contributing to our knowledge of what is real and true.

Wyman wrote:Thales and other Pre-Socratics (should read pre-Platonics) were more like early scientists. Plato took a sharp left turn towards idealism. Thales was interested in how things worked and what they were made of. That's science.

I like Thales, and wish we had writings on his original work. I study consciousness, and when I first started posting at forums, I had two locked down ideas about consciousness. Consciousness shares properties with water and it works through attraction and repulsion like magnets. Someone mentioned that Thales stated that everything is water, and that he was fascinated with magnets. So I wondered if he was also studying conscious life, or if it was coincidence, but I will never know. It seems that most of what we know about him is second hand, so it has all been interpreted, or misinterpreted, by others.

Wyman wrote:Plato idealized Truth and Beauty and Wisdom and made them things that one could come into contact with - things one must come into contact with in order to truly know. That has nothing to do with science.

But it has a lot to do with philosophy. Plato's ideas and neoplatonism were the first acknowledged concepts that truly broke off a branch of philosophy and made it religion. Religion still studies what is real and true, but their study is limited to what is real and true with regard to our spirituality, our emotions. Religion also studies consciousness, but they study what consciousness feels like, and they call consciousness "God".

Wyman wrote:Gee, I don't think science is a branch of philosophy, because it is not a search for ideals. It has run along with science throughout Western history, often intersecting, running together, then splitting apart.

A lot of people have problems with this concept nowadays. They divide what is real (physical) into science and what is not real (metaphysical) into philosophy and religion. It is a false dichotomy. Idealism is a part of philosophy, just as faith is a part of religion, and biology is a part of science, but all fall under the study of that which is real and true, so it all originates in philosophy.

When I was young, I was told that Aristotle was the Father of Science, but since that time, I have read that others are claimed to be the Father of Science. Makes me wonder about science's Mother. (chuckle) But really, all of these "Fathers of Science" are known as philosophers. It is my personal thought that Aristotle had more mysticism in his teacher, Plato, than he could deal with, so he reversed his studies and threw himself into anything that was real. (chuckle) I know Plato would have driven me mad if he were my teacher. Aristotle did make a pretty strong break into what eventually became science. Ginkgo would know more about this.

I think that people fail to consider that science could not exist without philosophy. Philosophy established language and what we can know. It established what was a stable truth (fact) and what was not, what was physical and what was metaphysical, how cause and effect worked and how to isolate which cause created which effect. It established numbers and math and weights and measures. Without all of these established and recognized truths, and many more, science would have no tools and no methodology to do science.

So, yes, science is a branch of philosophy. But like religion, it limits itself to specific areas of study. Science studies facts and physical reality.

G

first cause? causation is an unfounded and meaningless habit of association of events...

-Imp

Gee wrote

Put simply, philosophy is the study of that which is real and true, and how we can know that it is real and true. So the first person who observed or experienced something, and tried to determine if that observation or experience was "real" and "true", was the first philosopher.

That is way too broad of a definition. Defining it so broadly is like defining 'car' to mean 'anything with four wheels.' It is both overbroad and vague. It includes too much (carts and probing antenna) and not enough (three wheeled cars and study of abstract concepts).

Philosophy, I think, is more an area of inquiry and perhaps a methodology. But maybe I'm arguing semantics. I do agree with you that there is a kind of person, or aspect of people, that strives towards the truth. But the term 'philosophy' carries too much historical baggage to be used to describe it anymore.

Jacques Maritain was a French Catholic that wrote an excellent beginning book for philosophy, Introduction to Philosophy. That book is standard for most Catholic seminaries for their philosophy degrees. It is a great book. He states quite categorically that Philosophy is a science. Philosophy also studies First Causes. Philosophy looks to essences of things and a corollary to essence is First Causes. This comes from Aristotle.

Plato is NOT an idealist. Philosophy is not about Idealism whatsoever. The Republic is based on the Doric Republics of Crete and Sparta--real actual entities that lived for over 600 years. That is not idealism.

I wish those that replied to this thread read the link because all the objections stated in this thread have been answered in the link!

READ THE LINK.

Impenitent wrote:first cause? causation is an unfounded and meaningless habit of association of events...

-Imp

That would be Hume's causation you have in mind. First cause is a teleological concept while, causation is an empirical concept. At first glace they seem similar, but there is an important difference.

Ginkgo wrote:

Impenitent wrote:first cause? causation is an unfounded and meaningless habit of association of events...

-Imp

That would be Hume's causation you have in mind. First cause is a teleological concept while, causation is an empirical concept. At first glace they seem similar, but there is an important difference.

I understand this... (it was a question of "established and recognized truths" and "methodology" in the previous post)

-Imp

Wyman wrote:Right, but were Thales and Democritus et al really looking for first causes, or rather what the world was made of? Certainly, a drastic split came with Galileo, Kepler and Newton. I just think that there was a strain of thought, at times at least, that was more in the scientific vein long before Galileo.

That is correct. Not all Greek philosophers were doing teleology, some were also doing ontology as well. Aristotle and Plato provided teleological explanations, but Democritus wasn't providing an answer to that question, he was more interested in substance.

Wyman wrote:
Thales predicted an eclipse and said everything was made of water. When they were looking for what things were made of (water, atoms, fire and earth etc.) they were trying, not to look for causes, but for what things are made of (sort of like primitive chemists or physicists). They were mostly non-mythological, non-teleological explanations.

That's right some were doing ontology because they were interested in substances. As you point out these types of explanations differed from the rest of the ancient world because they didn't rely on the supernatural. They attempted explanations based of natural phenomena.

Wyman wrote: Another later example is Archimedes, who engaged in something resembling science, rather than philosophy or just pure mathematics.

Yes that is correct. This is where it gets a bit tricky. Science also does ontology, but it isn't the same type of ontology found in the ancient world. Science does non-metaphysical ontology, while the ancient world did metaphysical ontology. This is important distinction because it often results in people conflating science and metaphysics. However,as you point out there are a couple possible exceptions, but the majority of Greek philosophers were not empiricists in the modern sense of the word.