Knowledge in Philosophical Schools

An analysis of Thales the philosopher

The history of western philosophy has been in a constant state of flux. The ancient and the medieval era constitutes many different philosophical schools. This period is also significant as it is associated with the emergence of many notable philosophers, with many of their philosophical works still being studied till this day. Each school, with the help of their own specific discourse, can be credited to having brought upon a distinctive way of thinking, which would be different from other schools, in terms of philosophical activity. One of the most significant periods was the Pre-Socratic period, whose discourse can be regarded as revolutionary ( the explanation of this statement will be discussed throughout the paper). One of the most important philosophers that belonged to this period was Thales. This essay will attempt to explain how the philosophical works of Thales has changed the way we perceive the world and this essay will also show how Thales was the first philosopher to engage in a philosophy, that was both natural and scientific. According to Thales, everything in the world comprised of a single substance, which would be the originating principle. This substance, for him, was water.  Thales also went as far as to say that the earth is superimposed on water and that it acts as a flat disk staying afloat on water. There are many interpretations as to how Thales came about this conclusion. In this essay, we will refer to the works given by Aristotle. He conjectures that “observation may have led Thales to this conclusion, "getting the notion perhaps from seeing that the nutriment of all things is moist, and that heat itself is generated from the moist and kept alive by it (and that from which they come to be is a principle of all things)” ( Copleston 1993, p.22). For Thales, even though water can be explained as the building block for everything ( as explained in the quotation above), water can also serve as the destroyer of things. For example, in the case of a plant, if it gets a sufficient amount of water, it will result in it growing into a healthy living thing. On the other hand, an overdose of water could potentially lead to the death of the said plant. What made his theory even more ingenious is that he also explains the existence of water across all three states- gas, liquid and solid. With water in its natural form being a liquid, Thales implied that the process of evaporation is evidence of air being a product of water.  He also stated that if the process of freezing of water should be carried on further, the end result would be the solidification of water into the earth. Thus it would be right to suggest that “The only certain and the only really important point about Thales' doctrine is that he conceived "things" as varying forms of one primary and ultimate element.” ( Copleston 1993, p.23). As previously mentioned, Thales thought that the earth was a flat floating disk. He also attempted to explain the cause of all natural phenomenon through rational theories which did not involve any supernatural tendencies. This was a major paradigm- shift as before this theory it was customary to relate all natural phenomenon with anthropomorphic gods. For example, prior to Thales, in the event of an earthquake, the most reasonable explanation would have been that the Greek sea god, Poseidon, was angry, and thus he was the one who caused the earthquake. On the other hand, Thales concluded that the water which surrounded the earth must have crashed against it, thus resulting in an earthquake. Here we can see how Thales attempts to break away from the presupposition that forms around the causal relationship between anthropomorphic gods and natural phenomenon. This theory was carried forward by his pupils and his successors and has thus this theory has become axiomatic while explaining natural processes, both in philosophy and science. Thales can also be recognized as a hylozoist, as he believes that all matter has life. He also gave the example of a magnet, stating that even the magnet is alive as it can move iron. Thus the presence of movement indicates that the magnet ( matter) has life in it. Another statement that he is said to have spoken is “all things are full of gods”. Considering how Thales abandons the idea of relating gods to natural things and taking into account that we only have no primary text of his, the interpretation of the statement remains ambiguous. However, judging by the fact that both the magnet and the iron are things found naturally, we can assume that the movement of the iron being attracted towards the magnet can be interpreted as a natural energy and that there are many natural laws such as the afro-mentioned one in nature that offers an explanation on how something natural functions. In this way, the current interpretation collaborates with Thales’s notion of the rational hypothesis being used to explain natural phenomenon. As a conclusion, it is appropriate to say that “in Thales, we see clearly the transition from myth to science and philosophy, and he retains his traditional character sis initiator of Greek philosophy” ( Copleston 1993, p.24). REFERNECE- Copleston, Frederick. 1993. A History of Philosophy. Doubleday: New York

Analysing the historical misinterpretation of Lycurgus of Sparta, in relation to Stoic Ethics

Philosophy is a discipline that is spread across the world, with each country having their own philosophies. Even though that may be the case, there is still a hegemonic presence attached to the philosophies of Greece. Greek philosophy has a certain place in history itself, as most of the philosophical doctrines that have emerged out of it have been used as foundations for modern philosophies. Due to this, there is a vast existent discourse available on Greek philosophy. There are only a few of those texts which will be mentioned in this paper. Due to such extensive research being done on this epoch, it is only natural that there may be some problems and critique that must have arisen out of ancient and medieval Greek philosophy. For the sake of brevity, only one such problem will be discussed. The main text that will be used as a foundation for this paper is Frederick Copleston’s- A History of Philosophy. The reasons behind choosing this particular text will now be explained. There are two major reasons why Copleston’s text has been chosen. The first being that he has started the book by analysing the ancient Greek philosophers starting from the Milesian school, which is from 600 BC. The second reason behind this text being chosen is due to the quote in his book- “ The first point to be stressed is the need for seeing any philosophical system in its historical setting and connections. This point has already been mentioned and does not require further elaboration: it should be obvious that we can only grasp adequately the state of mind of a given philosopher and the raison d' etre of his philosophy if we have first apprehended its historical point de depart.” ( Copleston 1993, p.8) These two points will be further elaborated on in this essay. The problem that will be addressed in this essay will be related to Lycurgus, who was a Spartan philosopher who lived around 800 BC. The argument posed here is that he is the original founder and implementer of the Stoic Ethics. According to history, it was Zeno who was supposed to have implemented these ethics. This essay is an attempt to disprove that. The entire paper is divided into three sections. The first section will includes why and how the problem arose in the first place. This section also in some ways criticizes the works of both Plato and Socrates. The second section is an attempt to prove why Lycurgus should be considered as the main founder of Stoic Ethics. This will include some of my own personal research and also some other texts of authors who have a background in philosophy. The third section is an audacious attempt on how to avoid such problem in the future. Their points will be an analysis taken from the culmination of texts that are being used in this paper. The first section starts by introducing Zeno. He is said to be the original founder  of Stoicism around 330 BC. In this paper, the main focal point is on the ethical part of Stoicism. It is also common knowledge that Stoicism has been heavily influenced by the works of Socrates. Here is where the first problem arises. Socrates, in himself, is surrounded by ambiguity regarding his existence, as we get to know most of his texts through the adaptations of Plato. In Greek philosophy, Plato and Socrates are considered to be the most well known philosophers of all time. Thus, it is very common that their texts be used as foundations and be considered as axiomatic for future generations. In this instance, the quotation that was mentioned at the start of the essay will come into place. According to Copleston, each philosophical system should be studied in its historical context. When further analysed, this ‘context’ includes any historical events that may have occurred at the time. As previously mentioned, Stoicism was heavily influenced by Socrates, and he existed around 470-399 BC. Plato, the philosopher who wrote his works, lived around 428 BC to 348 BC. During their time, there was a major civil war in Greece, between 431 BC- 404 BC.  This war was called the Peloponnesian War, and it was fought between Sparta and Athens. It is important to note that both Socrates and Plato were Athenians while Lycurgus was a Spartan. When a war takes place between two or more states, it is not only a battle between military prowess, but also a war of ideologies and philosophies.  The ethics of the Spartan states were implemented by Lycurgus. Due to the intensity of the war, it is natural that Socrates, who lived through the war, be influenced by it and thus incorporate some of the Spartan ethics and philosophies into his own works. As we have no first hand texts of his, and only adaptations by Plato, it could be possible that Plato may have understood the ‘borrowed’ philosophies as Socrates’s own, and thus represented it as Socrates’s own work. Due to the hegemonic presence that is associated with philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, it can be assumed that no one would attempt to contradict their works. It should also be noted that Athens at that time was the capital of Greece, and also the philosophical hub of the world. While Sparta, on the other hand, was a heavily miltarized State. So it is natural to make the assumption that the philosophical doctrines that emerged out of Athens would have gained more importance than those doctrines that came out of Sparta. As mentioned at the start of the paper, Frederick Copleston started his book by focusing on the 6th century BC philosophers, such as Thales and Anaximander which were of the Milsean schools. As this is common with most philosophers this method can be interpreted to mean that these authors don’t give the same importance to the philosophesr that existed before 6th century BC. This once again becomes a problem when we remember that Lycurgus was thought to have implemented his philosophies around 800 BC. Thus we can say that the philosophies of 6th century BC philosophers were given much more importance than to those of 8th century philosophers such as Lycurgus. The second section will be an attempt to explain the argument fro the perspective of Lycurgus. He is credited with introducing the Spartan ethics. Their ethics, in a summary, consisted of mainly believing that one should not feel emotion, one must live according to nature and thus not be influenced by outside factors. These in itself are quite similar to those of the Stoic Ethics. The Spartan society was a highly military one, where the sole purpose of the entire society was to create invincible warriors. I  will now provide some instances which shows the similarities between the Spartan Ethics and the Stoics Ethics. According to Bertrand Russsel, in Sparta, young boys were taken away at the age of seven from their mothers and families and they were all put in a boarding school  where they were trained to be warriors. ( Russell 2004, p. 106) what Russell failed to mention was that this precedure is called the Agoge, which was around for hundreds of years prior to Plato’s birth.   Due to such intensive training, it is only natural to assume that the warriors that would emerge out of this training would be hardened men, and would not be susceptible to any outside emotion. It is not only men who were trained to be emotionless. Women in Spartan societies were also meant to show no emotion.  for example, as previously mentioned, their children would be taken away at a young age and be trained as a soldier. The mother of the child was not allowed to cry or show any emotion when either the child was taken from her, or if it was reported that the child had died, which was a common occurence in the training camps. Such determination was shown my both the genders hundreds of years prior to the official formation for the stoic school of philosophy. another important point that needs to be mentioned is that no Spartan was allowed to leave the state, except for war, and likewise, no foreigner was allowed to enter Sparta. Thus it is highly unlikely that there would be any other sources other than Socrates who would have written about the Spartan society, as no common man was allowed to come and go as he pleased. According to Anthony Kenny, “ Moreover, the Stoics believed that it was praiseworthy to die for one’s country: but is not that preferring an outer circle to an inner one?” (  Kenny 2004,  p.282) This goes along with the Spartan ethics that one should always be ready to die for one’s country.  Russell makes a very similar comment on the spartans- “The sole purpose of a Spartan citizen was war, to which he was trained from birth” ( Russell 2004, p.100). here we can see the stark similarity between the ethics of both the stoics and the Spartans.  it should also be noted that these two quotations have benen taken from two different authors, thus making it clear that they may not share the same opinion.  Due to the above arguments, we can make the conclusion that Lycurgus was the original founder of the Stoics Ethics, and due to some misunderstanding, they were interpreted to be the teachings of Socrates and Zeno. The third and the last section will focuses on the possible solutions that can be made to avoid such a problem in history. One way in which such a critique can be avoided is by not considering Socrates and Plato and their works as axiomatic. That is because if we do consider them as superior to others, then we may form a biased opinion of the other philosophical doctrines coming out of minor areas within Greece such as the afore mentioned Sparta.  Their hegemonic presence might be considered as permanent in Greek philosophy, as there are already certain periods named after them, such as the pre-Socratic era. Thus, in order to avoid such a problem in the future, one must study these philosophical doctrines with an open mind and an unbiased opinion. The second way in which one might improve their methodologies is by taking into consideration some of the historical events that may have occurred during the time of study. Such a problem can be identified in this paper, where the Pelopponesian War has played a huge part in determining  the philosophy and ethics of a particular state. But due to those wars being considered as a part of history and nothing to do with philosophy, the historical events are often overlooked. If we can avoid these in the future, many such philosophies may emerge to be false, or atleast be influenced by some other historical event. Another reason why this might be helpful is so that more than one city-state in Greece might be considered as being philosophically explorative, and not only Athens. As a concluding remark, it is fair to say that the epoch of ancient and medieval Greek philosophy can be considered to be the most famous and popular philosophical period as compared to the rest. This is due to the doctrines emerging from them and due to the superior presence of Plato and Aristotle. The arguments posed in this paper sought to address only one major problem, with that being giving an equal historical representation to each philosophy within its historical context.  The arguments that were posed in this paper were original and while many texts were used in this paper, all of them show the same problem, which is that they are not considering the philosophies of previous generations prior to 600 BC. BIBLIOGRAPHY Copleston, Frederick. 1993. A  Hisotry of Philosphy. New York: Doubleday Kenny, Anthony. 2004. Ancient Philosphy. New York: Claredon Press Bertrand, Russel. 2004. History of Western Philosophy. London

Analyzing the approach taken by Anaximenes in his philosophical doctrine in relation to science

The Milesian school of philosophy developed during the Pre-Socratic period. The importance of this school and its doctrines are relevant in the fact that they were trying to formulate theories on the origin of the universe. The major philosophical doctrines that emerged from this school has been credited to mainly three philosophers- Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes. The focal point of this essay will be to analyze the scientific approach taken by Anaximenes in his philosophical doctrine. Anaximenes shares the basic foundation of his theory with Thales. Both these philosophers believed in one unifying element that is the building block of the entire universe. For Anaximenes, this material substance was air.  Although Anaximenes uses a primitive element, just as Thales did with water, what could classify as scientific in his theory is his methodology. In order to explain how concrete objects are formed from the primitive element, he introduces the notion of condensation and rarefaction. ( Copleston 1983, p.26) Anaximenes used the density of the air to explore the ways in which the universe is comprised of air. He explained how the condensation of air results in the air getting colder, resulting in the formation of solids such as stones, rocks and eventually the Earth. His theory of rarefaction revolves around the assumption that during the process, the air becomes warmer, eventually culminating in fire. These concepts of condensation and rarefaction are now used actively in science. Another key element in his doctrine is his attempt to establish the relationship between quality and quantity with reference to air. The important point in his doctrine, however, may be said to be his attempt to found all quality on quantity—for that is what his theory of condensation and rarefaction amounts to in modern terminology. (Copleston 1993, pp. 26-27) Anaximenes also bases his theory of air being the unifying element, by empirical observation- “We are told that Anaximenes pointed out that when we breathe with the mouth open, the air is warm; while when we breathe with the mouth shut, the air is cold—an experimental proof of his position”( Copleston 1993, p.27) Through the above quotation, a conclusion can be made on how Anaximenes has taken a different approach with respect to other philosophers of his time. Most philosophers, including Thales, made fallacious theories based on little or no evidence. There were also no proper experiments done at the time by philosophers to give their theories a proper backing. In comparison to said philosophers, Anaximenes used experiments to back up his theory or a claim made by him. Disregarding the simplicity of his experiments, we can identify a certain paradigm-shift from philosophical theories with no pragmatic evidence to philosophical theories with empirical backing.  Thales and Anaximenes share similar foundations in their respective theories, along with other aspects in common. However, there is one major area where these two philosophers share different views. That area is the inclusion of divinity in their theories. Thales chose to drift away from the relationship between anthropomorphic gods and natural processes. On the other hand, Anaximenes chooses to include gods and everything divine as something originating from the air itself.  According to Copleston:- “Air then is the Urstoff of the world, from which the things that are and have been and shall be, the gods and things divine, arose, while other things come from its offspring." (Copleston 1993, p.26) Another interpretation of this can be that Anaximenes considered air itself to be a god. A reason for this being as he considered air to be both eternal and infinite, qualities that are often associated with a god.  He also makes the statement- "Just as our soul, being air, holds us together, so do breath and air encompass the whole world.” ( Copleston 1993, p. 26) The above quotation is another example of how Anaximenes considers air like a god. He refers to the soul, as a product of air. The relation he makes between the function of the soul and the air that surrounds the earth shares the similarity of the air holding us together. Thus an interpretation can be made on how he is considering air as a substance that regulates all life on earth, a similar function to that of a god. Anaximenes also attempts to explain natural phenomenon through a rational hypothesis. Taking the same views as in Thales, even Anaximenes understands the Earth to be a flat disk. For him, the earth drifts or floats on air like a leaf. Considering the period of time he lived in, and the fact that scientific discoveries were looked down upon, the assumption of the earth as a flat disk was a controversial claim- “In the words of Professor Burnet, "Ionia was never able to accept the scientific view of the earth, and even Democritus continued to believe it was flat.”( Copleston 1993, p.27) Anaximenes also attempts to explain another natural phenomenon. In the instance of a rainbow, he concludes that it is the sun’s rays that are falling on an impenetrable cloud. His account on how hail is frozen rainwater was also later scientifically proven to be true. As a conclusion, we can make the assumption that Anaximenes was using a quasi-scientific approach in his philosophical doctrine. What set him apart from Thales was how even though he used a scientific approach, he did not completely abandon the notions of myth and divinity and instead included them in his doctrine. His concepts of condensation and rarefaction exemplify the different atomic densities of air, which would make him one of the very first philosophers to engage in and analyze different densities in substances. His doctrine, which can be considered as a material monistic doctrine, paved the way for the fusion of science and philosophy. REFERENCES- Copleston, Frederick. 1993. A History of Philosophy. Double Day: New York  

Analyzing 3 problems in Greek Philosophy

The first problem relevant to the history of Greek philosophy is the placement of Heraclitus’s philosophical theory. To further clarify the problem, the argument that will be posed here will claim that Heraclitus’s theory is anachronistic to that of the Milesian school of Philosophy, and should not belong alongside other philosophers such as Democritus and Pythagoras Pre-Socratic philosophers were concerned with the world as a whole and trying to define the origin of the universe. One of the earlier schools of pre- Socratic philosophy was the Milesian school of philosophy. The philosophers of this school, such as Thales and Anaximenes focused on trying to explain the origin of the universe as a result of natural causes, such as water and air respectively. Heraclitus, in his philosophical theories, attempted to explain the cause for the universe as a result of natural causes, that cause being fire. In support of this argument, Frederick Copleston mentions that “now, it might seem at first sight that Heraclitus is merely ringing the changes on the old Ionian theme as though because Thales made Reality to be Water and Anaximenes Air, Heraclitus, simply in order to find something different from his predecessors, fixed on Fire.” ( Copleston 1993, p. 41) When compared to other philosophical doctrines during his period such as that of Pythagoras and Democritus, Heraclitus doctrine stands out. This is because both Pythagoras and Democritus have infused mathematical and scientific concepts in their doctrines respectively, which detaches itself from those theories of the Milesian school, in which the concept was based on natural causes and not proper scientific theories. Thus, I feel, that in order to understand the part of Heraclitus’s philosophy, that explains the origin of the universe with the help of the substance fire, it should be studied alongside the philosophies of Thales, Anaximenes, etc, and not alongside the more ‘advanced’ theories of philosophers such as Democritus and Pythagoras. The second problem in Greek philosophy that will be dealt with is the historical misinterpretation of Sophism. This particular school focused more on teaching rhetoric in cities such as Athens, which was a major shift from the previous schools of philosophy. It was because of this reason that it came under much criticism by philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. As these two philosophers are considered to be the greatest philosophers to ever exists, their works and texts have in many ways become axiomatic in the way in which we perceive and interpret ancient and medieval Greek philosophy. Thus, while studying Sophism, there is a certain misrepresentation as many have taken a biased view on sophism and has perceived it through the works of Aristotle and Plato- "It is particularly through the opposition to Socrates and Plato that the Sophists have come into such disrepute that the word now usually signifies that, by false reasoning, some truth is either refuted and made dubious, or something false is proved and made plausible."( Copleston 1993, p. 85) Due to this, the most valuable contributions of Sophism have often gone unnoticed. It is through sophism that a certain transition can be identified. The pre-Socratic philosophers focused on the universal aspect of philosophy, in an effort to find the origin of the universe and what it was made up of. This objectivity was later replaced by the sophists, who preferred a more subjective approach, instead exploring the ideas of  self.  Thus it is through sophism that a certain paradigm shift, from the object to the subject, can be identified. Another factor that needs to be noted is that many of the afore-mentioned ‘axiomatic’ work by the hegemonic philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle and Socrates focused on the self rather than the object. Thus their works and texts wouldn’t have come into existence if the transition from the object to the subject hadn’t have happened in the first place. Therefore even though the ideas that emerged out of sophism were used by these philosophers as a foundation, the sophist has not been given the due credit they deserve. The last problem within Greek philosophy discussed within this paper will be regarding the under-appreciation of the Spartan philosopher Lycurgus and his philosophical teachings. Lycurgus was a Spartan philosopher who lived around 800 BC. He is credited with the establishment and the transformation of Sparta as a normal Greek city-state, to a highly militarized one. Some of the values that were put forth by him were similar to the traditional stoic values, for example, its emphasis on personal ethics such as attempting to control the ability to feel pleasure or pain. Also, stoicism was greatly influenced by the teachings of Socrates. The argument that I wish to pose is that the predominant values of stoicism belonged to Lycurgus, but due to the hegemonic presence of Socrates and taking into consideration the historical events of the time, those values have now been credited to Socrates. According to Frederick Copleston, “the first point to be stressed is the need for seeing any philosophical system in its historical setting and connections.” ( Copleston 1993, p. 8) Keeping this reference in mind, Socrates rose to prominence around the same time as when the Peloponnesian war took place ( around 430 BC to 400 BC), which was a civil war between Athens and Sparta. A war between states is not only a conflict of military forces but also a conflict of ideas. Due to the highly hostile situation at the time, any work by Socrates would most definitely be influenced by the war. Thus, considering the predominance of Socrates in terms of public image, any work of his commenting on the ideas or the philosophy of Sparta, and thus of Lycurgus, could have been interpreted as being as Socrates' own work rather than the work of some other philosopher. As Athens at the time was the hub of philosophical development, it can be easily interpreted that the Athenians believed that the stoic ideas developed out of the works of Socrates rather than the work of some philosopher who belonged to their immediate enemy. In conclusion, the entire canon of western philosophy is not watertight and definitely, has some problems. Some of these problems have been analyzed here and could be explored further. This audacious attempt to find problems within western philosophy should not shift away from the importance of this epoch in terms of its relevance on future philosophical debate. Thus, we can say that the philosophical doctrines to come out of Greek philosophy can be considered as bedrock or a foundation for much of the philosophical debate in the contemporary era. REFERENCES- Copleston, Frederick. 1993. A History of Philosophy. Double Day : New York

TEACHER SHORTAGE IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

TEACHER SHORTAGE IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

The review of Metaphysics.

The conversation of mankind.-Bernstien

FUNDAMENTAL OF COMPUTERS (CONCEPT OF COMPUTER) (First semester notes) Chapter-1 (Part-3) Makhanlal chaturvedi national University,Bhopal

(Part-3) IN This, There is a chapter first of COMPUTER FUNDAMENTAL Subject Part-3 named INTRODUCTION OF COMPUTER Makhanlal Chaturvedi national journalism and communication University, Bhopal. There is a very important note oF Fundamental computers For BCA first semester Students. Share with your friends and help them to learn Fundamental of Computers. There are Five subjects in BCA first semester .

FUNDAMENTAL OF COMPUTERS (OPERATING SYSTEM) (First semester notes) Chapter-1 (Part-4) Makhanlal chaturvedi national University,Bhopal

(Part-4) IN This, There is a chapter first of COMPUTER FUNDAMENTAL Subject Part-4 named INTRODUCTION OF COMPUTER Makhanlal Chaturvedi national journalism and communication University, Bhopal. There is a very important note oF Fundamental computers For BCA first semester Students. Share with your friends and help them to learn Fundamental of Computers. There are Five subjects in BCA first semester .

Schrödinger time independent equation

Schrödinger time independent wave equations important physics questions

The Left Hand Rule( for motors)

The Left Hand Rule( for motors)