A History of Western Thought

From Ancient Greece to the Twentieth Century

Nils Gilje, Gunnar Skirbekk

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781135226046
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophie
• Subtopic: Geschichte & Theorie der Philosophie

This is a comprehensive introduction to the history of Western Philosophy from the Pre-Socratics to Twentieth Century thought. In addition to all the key figures, the book covers figures whose contributions have so far been overlooked, such as Vico, Montesquieu, Durkheim and Weber.
Along with in-depth discussion of the philosophical movements, Skirbekk and Gilje also discuss the natural sciences, the establishment of the Humanities, Socialism and Fascism, Psychoanalysis, and the rise of the social sciences.
History of Western Thought is an ideal introduction to philosophy and the sociological and scientific structures that have shaped modern day philosophy.

chapter 1 Pre - Socratic philosophy, with a glance at ancient Indian and Chinese thought

THE GREEK CITY-STATE: MAN-IN-COMMUNITY

Philosophy, in the broadest sense of the term, can be found in all civilizations. However, there were some civilizations, such as those of ancient India, China, and Greece, in which philosophy was cultivated more systematically. In these civilizations philosophical thought was put into written form. This gives us, who are living today, better access to those thoughts. The written form also allowed philosophers to record and communicate their thoughts in a different manner than in those civilizations that were based only on the spoken word. That which is written endures. It is possible to return to certain formulations in order to ask questions and to elucidate what was really meant. Analysis and criticism become possible in a radically new way.

A concise history of philosophy must always make certain selections. In this history of philosophy we are going to start with the first Greek philosophers and follow European philosophy up to the present day. On the whole, our selection will include European, upper-class men from the most central regions – there are few women, few from the lower class, and few from the cultural periphery. Such is history, in its standard version. Our task will be to understand what the philo sophers said and to find out whether the insight that they have passed on to us is still valid. Our starting point will be Greece, in the sixth century BC.

Before starting on our study of early Greek philosophy, it might be helpful to take a look at the society in which this philosophy emerged. It will be sufficient for us to highlight some central features: the Greek city-state (Greek: polis) was in many ways very different from the states of our time. It was, among other things, a small society, both in population and geographical area. The city of Athens, for example, had a population of approximately 300,000 in the 400s BC. We can assume that of this number roughly 100,000 were slaves. If we further deduct women and children, we are left with approximately 40,000 free Athenian men.¹ They alone had political rights.

The Greek city-states were often separated geographically by mountains and sea. The city-state consisted of the town itself together with the surrounding area. Agriculture was an important activity along with crafts and trade. It was usually no more than a day’s journey from the surrounding areas into the town. The Greek city-state was a close-knit community, a fact that influenced both the political institutions and political theory. For a while, Athens was a direct democracy in which all free Athenian men could participate. The political ideals were characterized by the same intimacy: harmony among equals in the political sphere, the rule of law, and freedom, where freedom meant living in unity under a common law. Lack of freedom was living in a state of lawlessness or under the rule of a tyrant. Problems were supposed to he solved by open, rational debate in a harmonious and free society, governed by laws.

The ideas of harmony and order, both in nature and in society, can generally be said to be fundamental in Greek philosophy, from the first philosophers in the fifth century BC until the time of Aristotle. The political theories of Plato and Aristotle can further be said to have ‘man-in-community’ as a fundamental concept, and not the individual in isolation nor the elevation of universal law or the state above the individual. For example, human beings were not seen as having `innate rights’; rights were connected to the function or role that the individual had in society. Moral virtue (Greek: crete) was not primarily understood as living up to certain universal moral rules, but rather as fulfilling one’s purpose as a human being; that is, finding one’s place in society. Plato and Aristotle worked within the framework of the Greek city-state: the system of slavery, for example, was as natural to them as the system of employees and employers is to us.

The geographical conditions contributed to the fact that the Greek city-states were often politically independent, although economically dependent on a certain amount of cooperation to secure the necessary supplies that they could not provide for themselves. After a period of immigration, around the ninth century BC, there was an expansion of the city-states. The areas surrounding each city itself were often barren, and the population grew at a faster rate than the city-state could support. From the eighth century, Greek emigrants started colonizing neighbouring territories (such as southern Italy). Increased trade led to the standardization of weights and measures, and coins began to be minted. Social differences emerged. Instead of straightforward barter of, say, goat skins for grain, goat skins began to be traded for coins, of which the farmers did not always know the correct value. And if one lacked items to exchange, one could borrow coins to buy grain: there were loans and interest on loans, and even new loans to pay off the original loan. Some people became wealthy while many others fell heavily into debt. In the seventh century BC these social tensions led to unrest. As a result, people demanded economic justice. Often a strongman (Greek: tyrannos) seized power in order to solve the economic crises. But these absolute rulers often became ‘tyrants’ in our understanding of the word – they ruled to suit themselves. This created political discontent. By the sixth century BC, the inhabitants began to demand law and equality. The democracy in Athens (400s BC) developed partly as a result of this discontent.

THALES

Life. Our knowledge of the earliest Greek philosophers and their teaching is scanty. We have little information that is certain and their writings have for the most part been lost. Our presentation is therefore based on conjectures and on an attempt at reconstruction. We do know that Thales lived in the Greek colony of Miletus in the fifth century BC, probably between 624 and 546. This is partly based on a statement by Herodotus that Thales correctly predicted a solar eclipse that is believed to have occurred in 585. Other anecdotes tell us that Thales travelled to Egypt, as was not unusual among the Greeks. It has also been claimed that Thales measured the height of a pyramid by measuring its shadow at a time of day when his shadow was the same length as himself

The claim that Thales predicted a solar eclipse indicates that he understood astronomy. Such knowledge may have come from the Babylonians. Thales was also said to have had a knowledge of geometry, the branch of mathematics cultivated by the Greeks. The universal assumptions in mathematics provided the Greeks with a concept of theory and theoretical testing: mathematical statements claim to be true in a very different way than statements about particular events. This opens the door for argumentation and deductive reasoning, without perceptible evidence. It is further claimed that Thales took part in the political life of Miletus; that his knowledge of geometry and astronomy contributed to an improvement in navigational equipment; that he was the first to tell the time accurately with a sundial; and, finally, that he became wealthy by speculating in olive oil because he foresaw a drought.

There is not much to be said about his writings because we lack first-hand knowledge of them. We must, therefore, investigate what other writers have said about him. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle writes that Thales originated the type of philosophy that seeks the origin from which everything emerges and to which everything returns. Aristotle also says that Thales believed this origin, or source, to be water. But we do not know exactly what Thales meant by this, if indeed he said such a thing. It is with this reservation that we will attempt to reconstruct ‘Thales’ philosophy’.

Greek philosophy can be traced back to Thales who lived in the Ionic colony of Miletus, around the time of Solon. Plato and Aristotle lived in Athens during the fourth century BC; that is, after the Athenian democracy had succumbed in the war with Sparta. We shall offer one interpretation of the main features of Greek philosophy up to the Sophists, with emphasis on the issue of change and unity in diversity.

It is said that Thales claimed that ‘everything is water’. And here, it is said, is the beginning of philosophy. To the general reader, with little knowledge of philosophy, one could hardly have a less promising starting point: ‘This is nonsense, if anything is!’ But let us give Thales the benefit of the doubt: it is unreasonable to attribute to a person the claim that everything is water, in a literal sense: that, for example, this hook and this wall are water in the same sense as the water in the tap. What can Thales have meant?

Before we begin our interpretation of Thales, let us recall a few things that are always useful to keep in mind when reading philosophy: philosophical answers can often appear to be either trivial or absurd. If, in an introduction to philosophy, we study the different answers – for instance, those of 20 to 30 intellectual systems, one after the other – philosophy may appear to be both odd and remote. To understand an answer, we must, of course, know which question it refers to. And we have to know what reasons or arguments there are, if any, to support the answer. As an illustration we could make the following distinctions: when we are studying physics it is not necessary to clarify constantly what kinds of questions and arguments there are to support the answers. Studying physics is largely a matter of becoming familiar with the questions and arguments that form the foundation for the discipline. As students become familiar with the questions and arguments, they can learn the answers to the questions. These are the answers that are presented in the textbooks. Philosophy, however, is not like this. Here there are various kinds of questions and arguments. That is why we must, in each case, try to grasp which questions a particular philosopher is asking and which arguments he or she is using to support this or that answer. Only then can we begin to understand the answers.

However, in physics we also know how the results or answers can be applied. They equip us to control certain aspects of nature (as, for example, by building bridges). But what can a philosophical answer be used for? We can, of course, use a political theory as a model for reforming society. But it is seldom as simple to say how we can ‘use’ a philosophical answer. Generally speaking, the point of philosophical answers is not that they can be ‘used’ but that they enable us to understand something better. We can, in any case, talk about different answers having different implications. It can make a difference which answers we provide to philosophical questions. A political theory, for instance, will have different implications depending on whether we view the individual or the society as being of primary importance. It is therefore important to be aware of what implications a philosophical answer may have.

Hence, there are four points of which we should be aware:

1the question

2argument(s)

3the answer

4implication(s).

The least important of these is the answer, at least in the sense that an answer only becomes meaningful in light of the other factors.

In this sense it is hardly very enlightening to hear that Thales contended that ‘everything is water’. Taken literally, this contention is absurd. However, we can try to guess what the claim means by reconstructing questions, arguments, and implications. We can imagine that Thales was asking what remains constant during change and what is the source of the unity in diversity. It seems reasonable to believe that Thales assumed that changes occur, and that there is one unchangeable element in all change that therefore is the ‘building block’ of the...