Philosophy was...
The change in thought, science, and technology since the time of the ancient thinkers has been enormous; however, there remain many aspects of ancient Grecian technology that cannot yet be reproduced. In areas of pure intellect, where only power of the mind has any effect, we still lag behind, and designs and plans sketched on age-old parchments cannot be recreated even today. The field of philosophy is different; all messages have the potential to be experienced and learned regardless of the setting. Therefore the degeneration of modern thought cannot be attributed solely to the superior intellects of the past, but we can learn a great deal from their works and try to return to their levels.
The ideas outlined in Plato’s The Republic and his other works encompass not only the basic premises of his theory on human epistemology, but also more personal ideals that go far beyond the static nature of his hypotheses.
If there has been such a major erosion of philosophy since the ancient times, what could have caused it? It is doubtful that nothing is worth thinking about since the millennia that have passed, but only a handful of “philosophers” are alive today and an even smaller number that actually deserve the label. A population with the permittivity of humans is ecologically incapable of becoming stupider (even over a relatively small period of 2000 years); therefore we cannot blame it on inevitability. This means that the shift must have been conscious, that the great thinkers of the past must have witnessed the overall decline of thought with the “growth” of a new generation.
The other possibility is that only the ancient philosophers were able to climb out of the hole of ignorance that surrounds everyone else. I think that this is the most likely option, considering the ripple effect that could be caused by the emergence of only a single great philosopher. These ripple effects may explain the “periods” of similar ideas that occur within a few decades of each other and why such amazing thinkers as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and more were all in the same era.
One of the most obvious results of great minds such as Plato was his work. Not only was his writing amazing in its beauty and simplicity, but also in its sheer volume and range of topics. Each of his works would be considered a lifetime achievement today, but Plato wrote dozens of books and essays explaining almost every aspect of life in a way that makes “For Dummies” books sound needlessly complex.
Accessibility is a major part of Plato’s writing, but this does not necessarily mean that it must lack profundity. The writing is special because it contains an interesting method of explaining different problems with each level. As the reader grows, they will encounter new questions, but will also be able to look deeper into Plato’s writing and will find new examples and statements that now cater directly to their present problem.
In The Republic (Book I), Plato uses Socrates to convey his arguments and ideas about justice and its purpose. The book is intended to be originally read as summary of justice containing the arguments posed by those who do not accept the precise “morality” of the philosophers (Sophists). Plato presents the arguments against his ideas strongly, giving an in depth description to the Sophistic claims that justice is merely the advantage of the strong. Providing a strong challenge shows that the reader has the freedom to learn from the opposition, and it also amplifies the power of the idea if the reader is convinced by Plato’s points.
Reading it the second time, The Republic takes on a much more different task. After understanding the basic question concerning Justice, the reader is drawn to parts in between; areas that may not have been essential in the base argument of justice seem to become highlighted across the pages. The writing now seems to describe Plato’s own struggle about his use as a philosopher in his society. With each time that it is read, only half (at best) can be understood, meaning that it can be read an infinite number of times and new ideas can still be absorbed. Book I ends with a transfer to a new (slightly more in-depth) question; setting the stage for a stair-like ascent through the ten books.
The works of Plato and other ancient philosophers are truly mind-blowing. His period created an enormous library of thought that has not since been surpassed. Modern philosophers (or even anything after his era) have tried so badly not to rehash old works that they have created ideals that are no longer useful. There is nothing wrong with working off of ancient ideas, as long as they are taken farther and questioned. It is stupid to fabricate a system of thought just to not add on to the open-ended early philosophy.
Juan
Jul 19, 07:57 AM
I have to completely disagree with the allusion to the idea that we have gotten dumber, that there has been an ‘erosion in modern thought’ as you put it. If anything, we have progressed!
Plato bases his system, if it is his system, on the soul. The soul must be taken a priori. It is his basic unit. Without the acceptance of the soul a priori, his system does not work. Plato qua Socrates makes the argument that we must do the good for it is good for the soul. Why this is the case, we are never told. Again, the soul and what is ‘good’ for it mus be taken a priori, an axiom. Plato never establishes the existence of the soul.
You can see the the Republic as a work that manifests Plato’s admiration for the Spartan polis. What is described in the Republic is a city-state similar to the Spartan one. You must realize that the city that Socrates describes as ideal is the one of farmers. He is forced to develop a city that incorporates luxury.
You must realize that the Greeks took Oriental ideas and added the agnostic touch. They separated Science and Religion. But in the end, Socrates renounced this and became religious.
Plato’s writing is not simple. It is quite complex. In the Meno he demonstrates his mastery of the Greek language by the verbs he uses to respond to Meno’s question. In the Republic he uses a word that means bought to teach and torture.
The beauty is his writing is that one always comes out with a new interpretation, he is illusive.
Western thought has been building upon itself. Remember that the Greeks borrowed a lot from Egypt and the Orient. You cannot have a Nietsche without a Plato, but to say that Nietszche is inferior to Plato is absurd.
For all their intelligence, the Greeks failed to realize that the earth was not the centre of the universe. We know better now. We’re progressing … the idea that we are in decline has been existence since ancient times.
Thame
Jul 19, 03:31 PM
First, thank you for the comment, I believe you are the first to do so on one of my main articles, and not the templates.
“Plato’s writing is not simple. It is quite complex. ”
I believe that the power of Plato’s writing comes from its layering (explained in par. 6)
Also, we must remember that simplicity need not lack depth. Allowing the reader to choose which level to read on is the ultimate profundity. (We must also remember that we are, most likely, reading a translated version, and I cannot help but wonder if Plato foresaw and accommodated future translations.
“For all their intelligence, the Greeks failed to realize that the earth was not the centre of the universe.”
I am not speaking about technological or scientific advancement (mostly), as it is quite obvious that there has been an enormous progression. I am speaking of philosophical growth. Think of the Ancient Philosophers with such amazing thinkers as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and more, each making groundbreaking work. Then consider the current state of philosophy; there is a clear difference in the number, and quality of today’s thinkers. I know that the ancient philosophers may have tilled the soil quite thoroughly, but there is nothing wrong with sowing modern plants on their grounds.
“But to say that Nietszche is inferior to Plato is absurd.”
To tell you the truth, I cannot make that claim as powerfully today as I did when I wrote the article (It is actually an essay from a class I took...I posted it because I haven’t been too active recently). I’ve been reading “On the Genealogy of Morals” and it has been very interesting.
Again, thanks for your comment. I’ve been waiting for a good one for a while now, and please feel free to go back into the archives to take a look at my other writing.
Juan
Jul 19, 04:46 PM
Concerning simplicity. All I can say is that simplicity and for that matter, complexity, for they are mutually exclusive, does not exist. It is for all intents and purposes a user phenomenon. What I mean is that to you something may seem simple, but that is simply (no pun) because you are able to see the pattern. To someone else, it may seem complex, but that is because he does not see the pattern. Hence, it is a user phenomenon. Ptolemy says this concerning his model of the universe, i.e., the celestial sphere. His system seems complex with all its ridiculous epicycles piled upon epicycles but he says that in reality it is not complex but simple, that the only reason why it may seem complex is because we are applying our standars of human, terrestrial standards. Ergo, user phenomenon.
My comment concerning Plato and his usage of Attic Greek comes from my having read Plato in the original and English. In Greek, there is this beauty I cannot describe …but then again Greek is such a beautiful language, unlike any language since.
The reason why these specific philosophers were making groundbreaking works is because, if other philosophers made groundbreaking works before them, theirs were lost so we do not have them. There were philosophers before Socrates and Plato, for the most part, their writings have been lost. Just as Plato was a disciple of Socrates, Socrates was a philsopher of someone else. Also we are only talking about the Western tradition.
For some time I have come under the impression that Plato wrote everything that can ever be written, it’s a bit of a stretch but it just shows my admiration for him. But I don’t really think that we should just stop developing philosophy. That’d be horrible. After all, Socrates said that if someone could provide him with a better system, he’d change his views. We’ve gone from believing in Form-like things, i.e., things that are eternal, to realizing that there are no such things, that at best we can only know things provisionally, but then again, that is good enough. Good and evil, as I understand from Nietzsche are not Form-like but made up concepts. I’m sure Plato and Aristotle (a crypto-Platonist in my view) would argue against it.
When developing a system, we have to start somewhere. In our system, and by this I mean Western thought, we started with the Greeks but they borrowed from the Orient (by Orient I mean Middle East). As the point is to the Euclidian system, the Greek philosophers are to us. Without them, our system collapses. I admire the Greeks, they are the coolest people to ever walk the face of the earth, but I also know that we have developed great things using them as a starting point.
And as Proust once said, “After all Socrates was nothing out of the ordinary, those people had nothing better to do than spend their time strolling about and splitting hair. Like Jesus Christ, ‘Love one another,’ it’s all very pretty.”
Thame
Jul 19, 05:14 PM
“That’d be horrible. After all, Socrates said that if someone could provide him with a better system, he’d change his views. ”
Yes, this is what it’s all about.
Again, thanks for the comments.
j.lasater
Jul 24, 10:27 AM
Thame,
In your first reply to Juan, you say, “Then consider the current state of philosophy; there is a clear difference in the number, and quality of today’s thinkers.”
I was hoping you could expand on exactly what you mean. Yes, it’s difficult to argue that there is a current thinker akin to Socrates, but what about folks like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Bertrand Russell?
I am sadly fairly ignorant towards modern philosophy so I cannot cite more, but I confident that a properly educated individual could.
Also, I am not so convinced the number of thinkers is in anyway reduced. It’s my general impression that philosophy is in no way fading away. What about Peter Singer or Daniel Quinn, to name a few. In addition, what about the countless students of philosophy in University? Of course, most of them are not publishing revolutionary works, but based on this group alone, philosophical thought seems to be thriving.
Look forward to your thoughts.
Thame
Jul 25, 06:06 AM
"I am sadly fairly ignorant towards modern philosophy so I cannot cite more”"
I’m afraid I too don’t have much experience with modern philosophy, so I’ve been taking a little time to read up on a few recommendations I have received: namely Richard Rorty
“Also, I am not so convinced the number of thinkers is in anyway reduced.”
Perhaps there is less public interest in philosophy, causing less publishing. Philosophy itself is too open to fluctuate based on generations or eras; the changes we see in philosophy are only changes in the public perception of philosophy, not thought itself.
“But based on this group alone, philosophical thought seems to be thriving.”
Yes, dedicated commenters like Juan show this.
James
Jul 27, 05:29 AM
To some extent, the perceived “degradation” in modern thought can be traced to the rise of what’s sometimes derogatorily called “Oxford philosophy” back in the mid-twentieth century. More often you’ll hear it called “logical positivism” though the name doesn’t describe the entire movement adequately.
Essentially, many prominent philosophers of the day, most of them working at or near Oxford, embarked on a program of reducing the great questions to semantic quibbles. In their view, questions about metaphysics or religion could be shown to have no empirical content, and thus to be, in their scheme, meaningless questions. Much of this was based on the early work of Wittgenstein (who later changed his views and came to dislike the positivists immensely), and the eventual view came to be that any question which could not be answered by an empirical test of some sort was meaningless and not worth asking.
The positivists were rather soundly refuted, thankfully; much of that work was done by Karl Popper, whose non-technical work can be a good introduction to modern approaches to philosophic problems. Rorty is interesting in his own way, but reading him in isolation can be dangerous; he’s best viewed as part of the tradition of the great American pragmatists, going back to C.S. Peirce, William James and John Dewey. But the image of philosophy in the minds of many people was forever tarnished by those years of semantic hair-splitting at Oxford.
If you’re looking for a good layman’s introduction which covers the rise and fall of Oxford philoosphy and a lot of other modern thought as well, I highly recommend Bryan Magee’s Confessions of a Philosopher.
Thame
Jul 27, 06:20 PM
“I highly recommend Bryan Magee’s Confessions of a Philosopher.”
I’ll take a look at that.
“Reading him [Rorty] in isolation can be dangerous”
I agree…a friend of mine recommended him so vehemently that I felt that I had to at least take a look at it. I’m currently reading “Redemption From Egotism” which contains some interesting ideas. However, I can’t help but find some of his positions on philosophy disconcerting. Hopefully I will have an article about this soon.
I was also wondering if anyone could suggest a female author. I have been reading almost exclusively male writings and I think it is careless to describe an era of philosophy when I am considering what amounts to only half of the possible viewpoints.
Juan
Jul 28, 04:51 PM
Thank you for the synopsis on the Positivists. I also have to say that I don’t know much about modern philosophy. I find it fascinating that they would reduce theological and metaphysical questions to the status of meaningless and semantic quibbles because of the lack of empirical evidence. Then again, if systems of thought had to be based on empirical evidence, then we would have to throw everything out the window. For it does seem that every system of thought begins with a priori, axioms that are postulated and must be taken on faith because there is no way to prove them. Moreover, the charge that certain types of questions are mere semantic quibbles seems to hold some truth, but I does say something about the power of language: it affects and effects reality.
What I like about modern philosophy is its attempt to come up with new vocabularies to discuss current philosophical problems. Plato – Socrates, I feel, did not develop a new vocabulary, instead becoming dependent on allegories, which help to convey ideas but not the actual ideas; allegories being representations or symbols of ideas (things) but not the things themselves.