What Do You Think About Greek Philosophers?

[lesmizzie 0]

I took a course on Classical Greece and was fascinated by the different points of view that the Greek philosophers had, particularly Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. Which Greek philosopher do you most agree with, and why do you personally think that this philosopher was closest to the truth? Or, which philosopher confused you? Which philosopher made you think?

[Killer008r 0]

Zenos of Ela, Roman yes, but he was a philospher and it did confuse me and it did make me think. he stated that time and movement couldent exisist. simply by stating with an arrow, and for those who dont know it here it is: the flying arrow is at rest, which result follows from the assumption that time is composed of moments … . he says that if everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always in a now, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. (Aristotle Physics, 239b.30) Zeno abolishes motion, saying "What is in motion moves neither in the place it is nor in one in which it is not". (Diogenes Laertius Lives of Famous Philosophers, ix.72)This argument against motion explicitly turns on a particular kind of assumption of plurality: that time is composed of moments (or ‘nows’) and nothing else. Consider an arrow, apparently in motion, at any instant. First, Zeno assumes that it travels no distance during that moment -- ‘it occupies an equal space’ for the whole instant. But the entire period of its motion contains only instants, all of which contain an arrow at rest, and so, Zeno concludes, the arrow cannot be moving.An immediate concern is why Zeno is justified in assuming that the arrow is at rest during any instant. It follows immediately if one assumes that an instant lasts 0s: whatever speed the arrow has, it will get nowhere if it has no time at all. But what if one held that the smallest parts of time are finite -- if tiny -- so that a moving arrow might actually move some distance during an instant? One way of supporting the assumption -- which requires reading quite a lot into the text we have -- is to assume that instants are indivisible. Then suppose that an arrow actually moved during an instant. It would be at different locations at the start and end of the instant, which implies that the instant has a ‘start’ and an ‘end’, which in turn implies that it has at least two parts, and so is divisible, and so is not an indivisible moment at all. (Note that this argument only establishes that nothing can move during an instant, not that instants cannot be finite.)So then, nothing moves during any instant, but time is entirely composed of instants, so nothing ever moves. A first response is to point out that determining the velocity of the arrow means dividing the distance traveled in some time by the length of that time. But -- assuming from now on that instants have zero duration -- this formula makes no sense in the case of an instant: the arrow travels 0m in the 0s the instant lasts, but 0/0 m/s is not any number at all. Thus it is fallacious to conclude from the fact that the arrow doesn't travel any distance in an instant that it is at rest; whether it is in motion at an instant or not depends on whether it travels any distance in a finite interval that includes the instant in question.The answer is correct, but it carries the counter-intuitive implication that motion is not something that happens at any instant, but rather only over finite periods of time. Think about it this way: time, as we said, is composed only of instants. No distance is traveled during any instant. So when does the arrow actually move? How does it get from one place to another at a later moment? There's only one answer: the arrow gets from point X at time 1 to point Y at time 2 simply in virtue of being at successive intermediate points at successive intermediate times -- the arrow never changes its position during an instant but only over intervals composed of instants, by the occupation of different positions at different times. In Bergson's memorable words -- which he thought expressed an absurdity -- ‘movement is composed of immobilities’ (1911, 308): getting from X to Y is a matter of occupying exactly one place in between at each instant (in the right order of course). For a recent discussion of this issue see Arntzenius (2000).{Edit} for easier read it just states hoew the arrow has to go from point a to point b and from every point theres a space where that arrow is still at movement.another paradox was the paradox of achilles and the tortus (totrus and hair) the whole gloating with achilles went on saying how hes soo much faster than the tortus but that is irrevelant to the paradox.it states that you cant go from point a to point be because to get to one point to another you have to get to a mid point but to get to that midpoint you have to get to the midpoint of it (I'll demostrate){start} --------------------------{middle} ----------------------------- {end}theres the middle of that{start} ------------{middle}--------------{middle} ----------------------------- {end}{start} -------{middle}-----{middle}--------------{middle} ----------------------------- {end}and so the middle gets smaller and smaller but there is never an actual end to it because no matter how small you get it you still have to pass that middle.... thus saying movement is a lie.

[Adwodon 0]

I do like Socrates / Plato, but the only problem with Socrates its hard to tell whether it was him saying it. As Plato wrote everything down and so could have changed it.In Socrates' early work it was believed to be him, but as it got on its thought that Plato changed some of the stories to more suit his point of view, which does slightly lower my view of Plato, as I feel he should have writen Socrates' account and then if he wished his point viewed, writen it separatly.But either way Plato's The Republic is an excellent book, well worth reading, it is true it turns you into a bit of a facist, but you still cant deny it would be the perfect society, which also makes you realise it will never come into being... just look what happened to the Nazi's... they tried to make a perfect society... true there vision of perfect was biased and clearly incorrect by dismissing entire cultures.I do however believe that the leaders of society should be capable, unlike ours at present. Read the parable of the ship and giant beast, I think thats what they are called but either way both show a view of society which is accurate and shocking.I dont believe in cencorship though, people should be able to see what they like.People should also have a purpose, in the perfect society all people have a set job in life, the blacksmiths are chosen, the leaders are chosen and you stick to your given job, an excellent way of remove unemployment and making sure everyone can provide for themselves as they will all have a job and be part of society.. and im going to guess that as they have a job they will all be able to afford a decent living.Anywho check it out its good stuff.

[Killer008r 0]

Platos repub, thats a pretty good one

[friso 0]

@ killer008r, please use the quote function when quoting, and mention your source (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/) i don't know if you did it for the hosting credits or that it was an accident, so i'm *not* accusing you of anything, just helping.

well, i like the old greek mythology and philisophers, especially the myths. i think i like Aristotle most, not because of *what* he thought, but *how* he thought. a whole new way of thinking. and it was socrates who said to be the bee that kept rome alive by annoying it, (i'm not sure what he exactly said, i translated it from dutch) and the one that got killed in his cave just outside rome (or maybe it wasn't rome)
it's been a while since i read about it, so excuse me for being so vague

[Killer008r 0]

Sorry bout the quote thing, I wrote most of it just one-2 paragraphs I quoted from, and I forgot to quote it.

[mitchellmckain 0]

Of all the greek philosophers Aristotle was the most productive, the most influential and, I believe, now the most misunderstood of the greek philosphers. The worst thing about Aristotle was the effect of his unrivaled genius, that he overshadowed human thought for such a long time. He was so knowlegable and right about so many things that it was difficult to doubt him where he was wrong. He is misunderstood largely because, medieval writers who were overawed by him, twisted his teachings to support christian doctrine.

For a description of some of his more astounding observational contributions to science see the websight: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html, which ends with,
"It is one of the ironies of the history of science that Aristotle's writings, which in many cases were based on first-hand observation, were used to impede observational science."

It is another irony the Aristotle has been equated with the rigid mechanical view of the world encouraged by the science and philosophy of the 19th century when nothing could be farther from the truth. Unlike other Greek philosophers particularly plato, Aristotle was a philospher of living things, which he studied extensively. For him the living was not a blot of imperfection upon the world as it was for plato. I think when you read him carefully you see a radical view which strives against the reductionist methods (explanation of thing by breaking them down into constituent parts) of nineteenth century which is better represented in Greek philosophy by the Atomists and Democritus. His ideas about causality are completely alien to the science of the nineteenth century. And the only the discovery of quantum physics and chaotic dynamics provides a light in which Aristotles ideas about causality start to ring with small germs of truth. His ideas about existence constisting of matter and form sounds a great deal like modern thought about all things being different forms of energy.

[iGuest 3]

Replying to lesmizzieAristotle was the worst thing that has happened to science. With Aristotle came the death of critical discussion; that the earlier Greeks had founded. The enlightenment period ended with Aristotle because people took his work and the bible as 'law'. After 300 years or so of emense cosmologicaldiscoveries, which are proven correct today, the pre-socratics and socratic philosophers done this only by conjectures and refutations. They had by no means the technology to test their theories, but only their keen intellect and deductive methods of rational and logical thought. Thales (624 BC), Anaximanderhis pupil and Anaximenes, together refuted the possibilities of a God let alone multiple, further came to the conclusion the earth was spherical, and that is was suspended in 'nothingness' (space). These theories were millennias before their time, and due to the inability to test their theories they were lost over the ages, until the coperican and Galilaen revolutions. In other words Aristotle incorporated a dogmatic discipline in his teachings which were counterproductive to science and by extension humanity.