5 ms·

I agree with the author, there are probably many philosophers with the same level of ability as Plato/Socrates/Aristotle alive today, and I think this is an imp

by airesQ 10y ago

I agree with the author, there are probably many philosophers with the same level of ability as Plato/Socrates/Aristotle alive today, and I think this is an important point to make. As for the role that ancient philosophers still play, perhaps philosophy could do a better job of separating people from their ideas. Lets think of flight, the Wright Brothers where the first to get an heavier-than-air machine to fly (fancy way of saying airplane). And yet aeronautics students don't have courses on the Wright Brother's. Because aeronautics has managed to separate the people from the ideas. Perhaps it would make some sense for philosophy to do the same.

Bluestrike2 10y ago
You can divorce the Wright Brothers from the principles of heaver-than-air flight. You can't really divorce philosophical work from the philosopher, particularly when dealing with the ancients. Throughout Plato's œuvre, there are a myriad of references to pre-Socratics and other ideas that were largely found only in an oral tradition with no surviving texts. Understanding his work, then, requires you to look at the historical context. The same holds true for a number of other philosophers: I can hand you a copy of Plotinus's Enneads, but unless you're familiar with Platonism, Epicureans, Gnostics, Stoics, and a number of other schools of thought (some of which are quite obscure), you're going to struggle to understand Plotinus's system. The other reason is that many of the "great philosophers" wrote in systematic form. Furthermore, many of their writings are collections--often compiled after the fact--that pull together notes from lectures, debates, treatises, etc. They cross-reference one another, and sometimes, they aren't chronological. Plotinus's Enneads are a good example of this in my opinion, as you wind up bouncing around chronologically a lot because of how Porphyry compiled them. All of that makes it almost impossible to divorce specific ideas from the writer or the writer's other ideas and works. Attempting to do so, rather than simplifying study, only makes it more difficult. The other thing is that oral tradition still held sway for centuries. Heck, it still does in some ways. I remember a guest lecturer we had who talked about an Iranian student of his. They were discussing Avicenna (a very well-known and influential Islamic philosopher), and the student corrected him about something. He wasn't sure where in Avicenna's writings he was referring to, and when asked, the student said something pretty shocking. He wasn't referring directly to his writings, but oral tradition passed on to him by his professor in an unbroken chain dating back over a thousand years to Avicenna himself. I can only imagine how much was lost over time, and how things might get distorted, but that story was pretty jaw-dropping. My point is, history and the authors themselves are inextricably linked to their work in philosophy. For both good and bad.
- im3w1l 10y ago
  I am not sure that such a divorce would be a good thing, but if it were done there is no reason we should read the Enneads, or indeed any of the classical works. Do away with history and authors both. Keep the ideas and arguments, but in modern form, and on a modern foundation.

by airesQ 10y ago

Bluestrike2 10y ago

You can divorce the Wright Brothers from the principles of heaver-than-air flight. You can't really divorce philosophical work from the philosopher, particularly when dealing with the ancients. Throughout Plato's œuvre, there are a myriad of references to pre-Socratics and other ideas that were largely found only in an oral tradition with no surviving texts. Understanding his work, then, requires you to look at the historical context. The same holds true for a number of other philosophers: I can hand you a copy of Plotinus's Enneads, but unless you're familiar with Platonism, Epicureans, Gnostics, Stoics, and a number of other schools of thought (some of which are quite obscure), you're going to struggle to understand Plotinus's system. The other reason is that many of the "great philosophers" wrote in systematic form. Furthermore, many of their writings are collections--often compiled after the fact--that pull together notes from lectures, debates, treatises, etc. They cross-reference one another, and sometimes, they aren't chronological. Plotinus's Enneads are a good example of this in my opinion, as you wind up bouncing around chronologically a lot because of how Porphyry compiled them. All of that makes it almost impossible to divorce specific ideas from the writer or the writer's other ideas and works. Attempting to do so, rather than simplifying study, only makes it more difficult. The other thing is that oral tradition still held sway for centuries. Heck, it still does in some ways. I remember a guest lecturer we had who talked about an Iranian student of his. They were discussing Avicenna (a very well-known and influential Islamic philosopher), and the student corrected him about something. He wasn't sure where in Avicenna's writings he was referring to, and when asked, the student said something pretty shocking. He wasn't referring directly to his writings, but oral tradition passed on to him by his professor in an unbroken chain dating back over a thousand years to Avicenna himself. I can only imagine how much was lost over time, and how things might get distorted, but that story was pretty jaw-dropping. My point is, history and the authors themselves are inextricably linked to their work in philosophy. For both good and bad.

im3w1l 10y ago
I am not sure that such a divorce would be a good thing, but if it were done there is no reason we should read the Enneads, or indeed any of the classical works. Do away with history and authors both. Keep the ideas and arguments, but in modern form, and on a modern foundation.