4 ms·

Who was the first modern philosopher?

6 points by diodorus 10y ago

briga 10y ago
I always wondered why scholars feel it necessary to draw lines between modernity and antiquity. Surely there's no real dividing line. I can't think of any "modern" philosopher whose work was so revolutionary that it broke completely from the philosophical traditions started in ancient Greece and the near east. Does drawing an arbitrary line in the sand between ancient and modern really help us better understand philosophy?
- aphextron 10y ago
  > I can't think of any "modern" philosopher whose work was so revolutionary that it broke completely from the philosophical traditions started in ancient Greece and the near east. I'd say it comes down to the split between the Continental and Analytic schools. Russel and Wittgenstein come to mind. They represented a radical departure from, and rejection of Continental philosophy which was rooted in metaphysics and descended directly from Socrates. Personally, I'd make the distinction around that time-frame.
- rurban 10y ago
  The dividing line was of course Christianity and the decline of science with the rise of it. The ancient nature philosophers, like Democrit were more modern than the philosophers until Russel/Wittgenstein. Leibniz, Newton or Pascal were extremely anti-modern.
  - mcv 10y ago
    There was no decline of science with the rise of Christianity. There was arguably a decline of science in western Europe with the fall of the Western Roman empire, but science progressed throughout the Middle Ages, and in western Europe, the church and monasteries were actually the main sources of scholarship and scientific progress.
    - rurban 10y ago
      Historian strongly disagree with you. One big culprit was Aristoteles with his wrong theory of movement, but mostly religion was the problem.
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      There was little science in the Western Roman empire and that continued after the fall of Rome. As far as I know, there was little science in the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire (can anyone name any important scientific contributions from there?) Charlemagne revived Greek learning but then it died off, and didn't get going again until 1,150 AD, thanks in part to science and philosophy from the Arab world.
infradig 10y ago
To save people time, it was Spinoza. Excellent read though.
mcv 10y ago
This article perpetuates some false myths about the reasons why some people were prosecuted and executed. Giordano Bruno was not burned at the stake for believing in other worlds; he got that idea from an esteemed cardinal who suffered no ill-effects for spreading these ideas, which were not considered heretical at the time. Instead, Bruno was burned for a whole slew of heresies much more central to Christianity, like denying the divinity of Jesus. More details here: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-representation-of-Giordano-Bruno-as-a-martyr-for-science-in-episode-one-of-Cosmos-A-Spacetime-Odyssey-TV-Series-2014-historically-accurate https://www.quora.com/Is-the-representation-of-Giordano-Brun... And the Galileo story is a lot more complex too: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event/answer/Tim-ONeill-1 https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-histori...

6 points by diodorus 10y ago

briga 10y ago

I always wondered why scholars feel it necessary to draw lines between modernity and antiquity. Surely there's no real dividing line. I can't think of any "modern" philosopher whose work was so revolutionary that it broke completely from the philosophical traditions started in ancient Greece and the near east. Does drawing an arbitrary line in the sand between ancient and modern really help us better understand philosophy?

aphextron 10y ago
> I can't think of any "modern" philosopher whose work was so revolutionary that it broke completely from the philosophical traditions started in ancient Greece and the near east. I'd say it comes down to the split between the Continental and Analytic schools. Russel and Wittgenstein come to mind. They represented a radical departure from, and rejection of Continental philosophy which was rooted in metaphysics and descended directly from Socrates. Personally, I'd make the distinction around that time-frame.
rurban 10y ago
The dividing line was of course Christianity and the decline of science with the rise of it. The ancient nature philosophers, like Democrit were more modern than the philosophers until Russel/Wittgenstein. Leibniz, Newton or Pascal were extremely anti-modern.
- mcv 10y ago
  There was no decline of science with the rise of Christianity. There was arguably a decline of science in western Europe with the fall of the Western Roman empire, but science progressed throughout the Middle Ages, and in western Europe, the church and monasteries were actually the main sources of scholarship and scientific progress.
  - rurban 10y ago
    Historian strongly disagree with you. One big culprit was Aristoteles with his wrong theory of movement, but mostly religion was the problem.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    There was little science in the Western Roman empire and that continued after the fall of Rome. As far as I know, there was little science in the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire (can anyone name any important scientific contributions from there?) Charlemagne revived Greek learning but then it died off, and didn't get going again until 1,150 AD, thanks in part to science and philosophy from the Arab world.

infradig 10y ago

To save people time, it was Spinoza. Excellent read though.

mcv 10y ago

This article perpetuates some false myths about the reasons why some people were prosecuted and executed. Giordano Bruno was not burned at the stake for believing in other worlds; he got that idea from an esteemed cardinal who suffered no ill-effects for spreading these ideas, which were not considered heretical at the time. Instead, Bruno was burned for a whole slew of heresies much more central to Christianity, like denying the divinity of Jesus. More details here: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-representation-of-Giordano-Bruno-as-a-martyr-for-science-in-episode-one-of-Cosmos-A-Spacetime-Odyssey-TV-Series-2014-historically-accurate https://www.quora.com/Is-the-representation-of-Giordano-Brun... And the Galileo story is a lot more complex too: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event/answer/Tim-ONeill-1 https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-histori...