5 ms·

If you want to really understand philosophy, start with Pythagoras, the man coined the term Philosophy and Cosmos -- and conducted the first attested scientific

If you want to really understand philosophy, start with Pythagoras, the man coined the term Philosophy and Cosmos -- and conducted the first attested scientific experiment in history. His legacy, through Plato, was resurrected as a key element of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It makes modern philosophy look like a sad farce since this legacy of modern thought probably isn't taught in a single modern philosophy course (happy to be proven wrong).

mod50ack 7y ago
If my "modern philosophy course" you mean a course dealing with only modern philosophy, then of course not: they're not seeking to delve into the ancient history, but deal with whatever era is on the docket. That's not the point of the course. But philosophy majors at many universities do have to deal with that as well. It just isn't the focus of a course in modern or contemporary phil. But as for courses dealing with presocratic philosophy, history of ancient Greek philosophy, mathematic and science ... They most certainly do exist and deal with exactly this legacy.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  But the point of learning about Pythagoreanism isn't to learn ancient history. It is to learn philosophy. And if pythagoreanism-platonism is the most influential thread of philosophy of all time, then modern philosophy would need to obviate that legacy (like modern chemistry obviates ancient chemistry), integrate it, or simply remain ignorant of it.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    You wouldn't start a Tudor England history course with the Roman Empire just because they had historical influence. You'd probably be aware of the linking via the introductory courses. Not every course needs to discuss every facet of a topic, foundational or not.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - mod50ack 7y ago
    The legacy isn't avoided in upper level classes. And an intro survey in philosophy will cover it. But if I am in an upper level course on contemporary philosophy, I don't need to rehash Platonism. I know philosophy is said to be a series of footnotes to Plato, but this isn't literally the case.
  - fatbird 7y ago
    In my program, we had a saying that lowbrow philosophers end every argument with "Plato said it first"; middlebrows say "Kant said it first"; highbrows say "Wittgenstein said it first." Modern philosophy hasn't "obviated" Plato, per se, but any competent philosopher today can discuss what Plato thought generally and how/why we think differently today. The philosophical method of analysis and argument remains, but no one talks seriously about Platonic forms except as part of the history.
    - mod50ack 7y ago
      With some exceptions. Mathematical Platonism is still taken quite seriously, though it's evolved a bit since the Meno.
      - fatbird 7y ago
        Interesting. How's Intuitionism doing?
        ukj 7y ago
        Intuitionism/constructivism has gained much momentum in recent years. It is the foundation for Hawking’s model-dependent realism [1]; or more radically Dummett’s anti-realism [2]. Speaking purely about Mathematics - there have been great strides in constructive mathematics in the last 3-4 decades, and great overlaps with computer science (Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence). A formalist might even say that the fields of logic, mathematics and computer science are identical. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism
    - dr_dshiv 7y ago
      It seems to me quite a tall order to say that "any competent philosopher today can discuss what Plato thought generally and how/why we think differently today." Do you have a summary or link to one?
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    >But the point of learning about Pythagoreanism isn't to learn ancient history. It is to learn philosophy. The two, at least according to Hegel, are not so easily separable. "The more the ordinary mind takes the opposition between true and false to be fixed, the more is it accustomed to expect either agreement or contradiction with a given philosophical system, and only to see reason for the one or the other in any explanatory statement concerning such a system. It does not conceive the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive evolution of truth; rather, it sees only contradiction in that variety. The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another. But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes them at the same time moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole."
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  The core ideas of Pythagoreanism are: 1. Oneness 2. "all is number" 3. There are fundamental harmonies in the cosmos and the soul 4. Integration of the rational and the spiritual It's philosophy as a scientific religious pursuit. I don't think that comes up much in philosophy 101
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
I have never understood this thing about being asked to study old texts in Philosophy. In no other field that I have studied have people suggested that my first introduction to the field must be a book written decades ago, forget two millennia ago. If I want to study physics, nobody tells me to read Newton or Einstein's paper. Instead I should read an introductory textbook, whose contents and presentation are much better than the original texts. If you are telling me that in the twenty centuries, no one has taken what Pythagoras/Plato said and has rewritten it in a better way, with modern exposition and examples and graphics and what not, I fail to believe you. Because that would mean philosophy as a discipline is not improving by building upon the works of those past, unlike every other intellectual discipline. I know this is not true, so stop suggesting old texts to beginners and start suggesting books written in the last twenty years.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >In no other field that I have studied have people suggested that my first introduction to the field must be a book written decades ago, forget two millennia ago. No other field is philosophy. Philosophy, in some respects, is special - at least according to Socrates as relayed by Plato. As Socrates says, each science (or even activity) has its object, but what of the science which has science as its object? The trouble with many future reformulations of key ideas is that they can miss the intricacies and highly abstract arguments of the original texts. For that reason, it may be more appropriate to read Newton than it is to read Einstein, because Newton used much more natural language than equations. I would very heavily disagree with the idea that introductory textbooks necessarily have better contents and presentation than original texts, and any serious philosopher will tell you that too. >If you are telling me that in the twenty centuries, no one has taken what Pythagoras/Plato said and has rewritten it in a better way, with modern exposition and examples and graphics and what not, I fail to believe you. What do you mean by "a better way"? Is Plato really so difficult or obtuse or obscure that one needs to express Socrates' ideas in "a better way"? The text is perfectly readable to a modern audience, which is precisely why starting with Plato's actual dialogues is the hallmark of any good university philosophy programme. >Because that would mean philosophy as a discipline is not improving by building upon the works of those past No; you have it backwards. Many philosophers have agreed with or disagreed with Plato, but the point of a text on Plato's ideas should represent what he wanted to represent in those ideas, not say "well, that's what Plato said, here's my idea now!". Philosophy (according to some accounts, at least) does progress, but it's dubious that rewriting and "simplifying" texts is the hallmark of progress. You end with the assumption that books written since 2000 are necessarily better than Plato. I fail to see why this is the case. If you want an overview of philosophy since Plato, then by all means, only the most up-to-date book will do. If you want to know Plato's (or Socrates') ideas yourself, there is no better source than Plato himself. Philosophy explanations and short introductions (Peter Singer's one on Marx comes to mind) are riddled with errors, and for any such text you will find at least ten philosophers ready to lambast an "introductory" interpretation because it misses out on the intricacies of that thought. I'm not joking. Look at any intro book on Hegel, Kant, Marx, Pythagoras. Then look at the reviews published in philosophy journals. "Progress" in philosophy does not and cannot mean shortening, rewriting and "simplifying" ideas.

mod50ack 7y ago

If my "modern philosophy course" you mean a course dealing with only modern philosophy, then of course not: they're not seeking to delve into the ancient history, but deal with whatever era is on the docket. That's not the point of the course. But philosophy majors at many universities do have to deal with that as well. It just isn't the focus of a course in modern or contemporary phil. But as for courses dealing with presocratic philosophy, history of ancient Greek philosophy, mathematic and science ... They most certainly do exist and deal with exactly this legacy.

dr_dshiv 7y ago
But the point of learning about Pythagoreanism isn't to learn ancient history. It is to learn philosophy. And if pythagoreanism-platonism is the most influential thread of philosophy of all time, then modern philosophy would need to obviate that legacy (like modern chemistry obviates ancient chemistry), integrate it, or simply remain ignorant of it.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  You wouldn't start a Tudor England history course with the Roman Empire just because they had historical influence. You'd probably be aware of the linking via the introductory courses. Not every course needs to discuss every facet of a topic, foundational or not.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- mod50ack 7y ago
  The legacy isn't avoided in upper level classes. And an intro survey in philosophy will cover it. But if I am in an upper level course on contemporary philosophy, I don't need to rehash Platonism. I know philosophy is said to be a series of footnotes to Plato, but this isn't literally the case.
- fatbird 7y ago
  In my program, we had a saying that lowbrow philosophers end every argument with "Plato said it first"; middlebrows say "Kant said it first"; highbrows say "Wittgenstein said it first." Modern philosophy hasn't "obviated" Plato, per se, but any competent philosopher today can discuss what Plato thought generally and how/why we think differently today. The philosophical method of analysis and argument remains, but no one talks seriously about Platonic forms except as part of the history.
  - mod50ack 7y ago
    With some exceptions. Mathematical Platonism is still taken quite seriously, though it's evolved a bit since the Meno.
    - fatbird 7y ago
      Interesting. How's Intuitionism doing?
      - ukj 7y ago
        Intuitionism/constructivism has gained much momentum in recent years. It is the foundation for Hawking’s model-dependent realism [1]; or more radically Dummett’s anti-realism [2]. Speaking purely about Mathematics - there have been great strides in constructive mathematics in the last 3-4 decades, and great overlaps with computer science (Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence). A formalist might even say that the fields of logic, mathematics and computer science are identical. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    It seems to me quite a tall order to say that "any competent philosopher today can discuss what Plato thought generally and how/why we think differently today." Do you have a summary or link to one?
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >But the point of learning about Pythagoreanism isn't to learn ancient history. It is to learn philosophy. The two, at least according to Hegel, are not so easily separable. "The more the ordinary mind takes the opposition between true and false to be fixed, the more is it accustomed to expect either agreement or contradiction with a given philosophical system, and only to see reason for the one or the other in any explanatory statement concerning such a system. It does not conceive the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive evolution of truth; rather, it sees only contradiction in that variety. The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another. But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes them at the same time moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole."
dr_dshiv 7y ago
The core ideas of Pythagoreanism are: 1. Oneness 2. "all is number" 3. There are fundamental harmonies in the cosmos and the soul 4. Integration of the rational and the spiritual It's philosophy as a scientific religious pursuit. I don't think that comes up much in philosophy 101

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

I have never understood this thing about being asked to study old texts in Philosophy. In no other field that I have studied have people suggested that my first introduction to the field must be a book written decades ago, forget two millennia ago. If I want to study physics, nobody tells me to read Newton or Einstein's paper. Instead I should read an introductory textbook, whose contents and presentation are much better than the original texts. If you are telling me that in the twenty centuries, no one has taken what Pythagoras/Plato said and has rewritten it in a better way, with modern exposition and examples and graphics and what not, I fail to believe you. Because that would mean philosophy as a discipline is not improving by building upon the works of those past, unlike every other intellectual discipline. I know this is not true, so stop suggesting old texts to beginners and start suggesting books written in the last twenty years.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>In no other field that I have studied have people suggested that my first introduction to the field must be a book written decades ago, forget two millennia ago. No other field is philosophy. Philosophy, in some respects, is special - at least according to Socrates as relayed by Plato. As Socrates says, each science (or even activity) has its object, but what of the science which has science as its object? The trouble with many future reformulations of key ideas is that they can miss the intricacies and highly abstract arguments of the original texts. For that reason, it may be more appropriate to read Newton than it is to read Einstein, because Newton used much more natural language than equations. I would very heavily disagree with the idea that introductory textbooks necessarily have better contents and presentation than original texts, and any serious philosopher will tell you that too. >If you are telling me that in the twenty centuries, no one has taken what Pythagoras/Plato said and has rewritten it in a better way, with modern exposition and examples and graphics and what not, I fail to believe you. What do you mean by "a better way"? Is Plato really so difficult or obtuse or obscure that one needs to express Socrates' ideas in "a better way"? The text is perfectly readable to a modern audience, which is precisely why starting with Plato's actual dialogues is the hallmark of any good university philosophy programme. >Because that would mean philosophy as a discipline is not improving by building upon the works of those past No; you have it backwards. Many philosophers have agreed with or disagreed with Plato, but the point of a text on Plato's ideas should represent what he wanted to represent in those ideas, not say "well, that's what Plato said, here's my idea now!". Philosophy (according to some accounts, at least) does progress, but it's dubious that rewriting and "simplifying" texts is the hallmark of progress. You end with the assumption that books written since 2000 are necessarily better than Plato. I fail to see why this is the case. If you want an overview of philosophy since Plato, then by all means, only the most up-to-date book will do. If you want to know Plato's (or Socrates') ideas yourself, there is no better source than Plato himself. Philosophy explanations and short introductions (Peter Singer's one on Marx comes to mind) are riddled with errors, and for any such text you will find at least ten philosophers ready to lambast an "introductory" interpretation because it misses out on the intricacies of that thought. I'm not joking. Look at any intro book on Hegel, Kant, Marx, Pythagoras. Then look at the reviews published in philosophy journals. "Progress" in philosophy does not and cannot mean shortening, rewriting and "simplifying" ideas.