Comments on: Man Knowledge: The Greek Philosophers

By: Tommy from Chicago

Tommy from Chicago — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:27:59 +0000

Besides the St Thomas Aquinas error which many people have already pointed out, I thought this was an excellent article! I find myself revisiting it quite often. As a political analyst in the Air Force, I am frequently called upon to comment on the differences between Liberals and Conservatives or Collectivists vs Individualists as it applies to various world leaders. My job would be so much easier if Philosophy was still commonly taught in public schools, (by reputable teachers), because I could just refer to Plato and Aristotle. To really get to the heart of the matter you must first understand thier very different ideologies and I frequently talk about many of the same points like in the article above. To understand the difference between Plato and Aristotle is to understand the root of political ideology today.

By: Ancient Greek Philosophers For Kids

Ancient Greek Philosophers For Kids — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:54:23 +0000

[...] in texas deciding what history is in your … Home-school curriculum « anakalianwhims's blog Plato and aristotle: an introduction to greek philosophy | the art … Who decides what's in your kids' textbooks? « liveshots History of world [...]

By: Barber

Barber — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:31:40 +0000

St Thomas Aquinas is usually regarded as a neo-Aristotelian.
St Augustine is usually regarded as a neo-Platonist. As far as their metaphysics and epistemology goes.

By: Tristan

Tristan — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:22:13 +0000

I maintain, and have for some time, that everyone should have to take an introduction to philosophy class, if only because it makes arguing with people easier. It’s so difficult to convince a person of anything when their mind is filled with this “all truth is relative” nonsense. Philosophy departments have been moving away from post-modernism (and positivism before it) since I was born, but the lag between philosophy chairs and the philosophy people pick up from Oprah or on the radio is really frustrating.

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:42:12 +0000

I’ve always been curious about philosophy, and this article strengthened my resolve. I think it’s high time I hit the ol’ bookcase and dug out “The Republic”.

Thanks!

By: CoffeeZombie

CoffeeZombie — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:54:39 +0000

@Jeem
On the one hand, I’m not sure how else to read the “ironic” statement as anything other than a “dig” at Christianity. If nothing else, the term “Dark Ages” is, itself, a dig at Christianity. It has been since at least the Enlightenment. Enlightenment scholars saw Europe as having emerged from the Dark Ages (an Age of Faith) to a brighter age (the Age of Reason). It is for this very reason that scholarship and academia have largely, to my understanding, ceased to use the term “Dark Ages.” The term is, itself, a judgment pronounced on a certain period of history, and an inaccurate one at that (many advancements across the board were made in Europe during the Medieval Era).

Not to mention, as evidenced by the art from the period, the people of the Medieval Era apparently saw themselves as living in a very bright and colorful time.

On the other hand, if I’m interpreting the statement correctly (it’s ironic that that the Dark Ages began when a Christian Emperor closed Plato’s Academy), it’s a rather ignorant statement, and I’d rather not assume that of the author. The beginning of any historical period, but particularly the Dark Ages, is not some objective demarcation. Historical periods are usually determined after the fact, by people looking back afterward.

In other words, Emperor Justinian’s closing the Academy did not immediately plunge Europe into a time of ignorance and darkness. If, in fact, the Dark Ages officially began there, it is only because a scholar at some point in time decided they began there. Given the prejudices of the Enlightenment scholars, for example, it really makes sense that they would see the closing of the Academy as a symbolic event displaying the end of one Age of Reason, and the descent of Europe into superstition.

By the way, while much classical knowledge may well have been lost in Western Europe, this would be more due to the invasions and destruction of the various barbarian groups that invaded and sacked the cities. However, classical knowledge was not all lost, thanks to the monasteries in which it was largely preserved.

In addition, while the Western Roman Empire fell, the Eastern Roman Empire (aka, the Byzantine Empire) continued on for centuries as a Christian empire. Not only did it continue, but it thrived in wealth, knowledge, etc. Where did the Muslim Arabs get the classical knowledge (and many of the advancements built on it) for the Europeans to later bring back (having witnessed it during the Crusades, another oft-misrepresented part of history)? From the Christians who they had conquered!

By: Jeem

Jeem — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:32:56 +0000

I am not sure of the author intended a “dig” at the Christians by deeming it “ironic” that a Christian emperor who closed Plato’s academy, but it is certain that most readers may not realize that Christianity, esp. the Scholastic period, is the continuation of the ancient philosophy. perfecting them in the process. There is a great compatibility between faith and reason, which the Christian philosophers understood. (Ref. “Fides et Ratio,” by Pope John Paul II). Today, our culture rejects the Christian foundations in philosophy and broadly label all Christians as ignorant fundamentalists. Any serious study of philosophy or history would not be content to call the period of time from the fall of Rome to Modernity as “dark.”

By: CoffeeZombie

CoffeeZombie — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:42:18 +0000

@Earnesto Right, and he would have learned about Plato from the Christians there, not from the Arabs (at least, not Muslim Arabs, as Islam didn’t even exist at that time), as the sentence I was complaining about implies.

By: Tyler Logan

Tyler Logan — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:03:45 +0000

Nice and interesting post. Philosophy has always interested me – nice read.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:52:54 +0000

The thing about the ancient greeks is they were not cheifly theorists.
They put their philosophy’s to the test, not like modern philosophers like Immanuel Kant who sat in his house whining all day and never travelled outside of his backwater village.
They were also not nerds locked up in ivory towers, Plato was a champion of pankration, a “sport” (more like death match) that makes modern M.M.A bouts look like girl scouts having a pillow fight, and Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great, so he must have had some brass balls himself.
A good article.
Could have been written better, but all you whiners should realise this site is not your oxford philosophy club, it is a site cheifly written for laymen, and this is a good introduction to the topic.
The recommended reading is great also.