>>7625678 If you're interested in what happens to a society which is moving from a belief in gods to atheism then yes. Just like now they behead their objective gods and return to pantheism, or as neuroscientists describe as "panpsychism." It's good stuff for the curious type, but if you're studying for any other reason then it can be boring.
The thing about the presocratics is that they were trying to answer unanswerable questions at the time. They were basically hypothesizing about stuff like how big the universe was, how it worked, etc. and that's all it was - guesses, ideas, theories with no support.
Socrates isn't such a big deal because he was an incredible thinker - he's a big deal because he was the first to really say "hey guys why don't we just figure out stuff we can test, or know intimately?" i.e. stuff relating to humans, how humans should live, etc etc etc.
Socrates was practical, and as silly as it sounds he was the first to really do that and become renown. Presocratics are basically a waste of your time if you're only after knowledge and thought still relevant today. They're only really valuable to historians and people simply curious what ideas people had of the mechanics of life long before such things could really be known.
>>7626213 Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that "practical" use of philosophy heighten with Socrates, only to culminate in Aristotle's approach to the physical world, and from then onwards all "Aristotelian" thought?
>>7626230 Pretty much. The thing is, Socrates was the guy who said "dude, there's no point in trying to figure out this stuff we can't really know. Let's focus our thoughts on how we can best live/best uphold justice/etc."
Aristotle obviously built on that by saying we shouldn't only focus on the practical, but test and experience all we can to better understand the world.
>>7626230 It's all just common sense, anyhow. It's not like empirical science hadn't been happening for thousands of years prior to Aristotle. Think about the architecture and metallurgy of the Ancient Near East, for example. There may not have been anyone claiming a philosophical system of logic, but they were quite obviously using logic (or what we now know as logic) regardless.
This is why Aristotle was the worst philosopher, in my opinion: it was just a bunch of moralistic guidelines and common sense. Plato and Socrates seemed to have been deep thinkers, on the other hand.
>>7626405 What the fuck are you talking about. You aren't going to understand anything of depth about Hume without the Greeks. The Greeks are so basic and fundamental, you shouldn't be allowed near other books, let alone a keyboard until you've thoroughly digested them. I'd love to hear your approach to weight training.
>>7626548 Here's a whole book about it: Socrates Meets Hume: The Father of Philosophy Meets the Father of Modern Skepticism by Peter Kreeft
On a very basic level, you are going to fail to understand much of any post-Greek philosophy with out a good understanding of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle. All other philosophers were educated & inspired by them. Without the Greeks, you will not understand the significance of their references or refutations. If Hume is superior in anyway, it was because he built upon their work. Hume himself would tell you to SWTG & he really wouldn't be meming.
>>7626716 >>7626759 >>7626764 As much as I agree one ought to start with the Greeks, they are hardly necessary if someone wants to read analytic philosophy. That's the nature of the analytic view of philosophy as akin to the sciences with linear and concrete progress---there's no need to read Aristotle for biology or Copernicus for astronomy.
However, with continental philosophy, which views philosophy as cyclical or even altogether chaotic and non-linear, then yes, the Greeks are essential and will forever continue to be because the tradition treats them as more than just a history lesson.
>>7626851 Its not only that When plato describe what the lawgiver should give he talk on tradition and festivals, so is the republic take place in a festival for new gods. Socrates himself talk on divine intervension and gods constantly Also When aristotle give reasons for the unmoved mover from what i remember he qoute homer
In xenophon's banquet they dont reject homer or the gods rather the blind citation
The plays we have don't show such ubderstanding as far as i know
Thread replies: 36 Thread images: 5
Thread DB ID: 467233
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.