4 ms·

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 histor

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

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