3 ms·

In the process of studying physics, you do not have to study Aristotle, but you do when studying philosophy. This tells me that either progress in philosophy as

In the process of studying physics, you do not have to study Aristotle, but you do when studying philosophy. This tells me that either progress in philosophy as an area of knowledge is very slow, or, unlike in other areas and not unlike with religion (or culture in general) there are many of them - potentially of equal value, - or that philosophy must always be studied and can only be understood in the historical and/or cultural context.

freedomben 5y ago
When I studied physics, we did start with Aristotle. In both physics and philosophy you're not studying Ancient Greece necessarily because they are right, you're studying it because understanding the history of thought helps you understand modern thought.
- guenthert 5y ago
  But how common is that? Where/when I studied, history of science was a different major. Sure, we (undergrad students with physics major) knew about Newton and those inclined as much could study the historic context on their own, but otherwise everything (perhaps short of classic mechanic of the rigid body) before the late nineteenth century was of little interest.
evol262 5y ago
To verify and prove that you have a new, original thought, you essentially need to address everyone who's every written about it before, and their arguments (or at least intermediaries who have already done that). A lot of philosophical texts are "I have this new theory", and the remainder of the text is "so-and-so said this, but they are wrong/my idea is different because...". Think of something like Kant's Metaphysics of Morals. The vast majority of the text is little different from a proof with QED at the end. In physics, you learn formulas, and those can/do build on top of each other (as well as mathematical axioms/shortcuts). Reading Aristotle isn't any different in that sense. You aren't reading Aristotle for The Physics. You're reading it for ethical theory (and virtue ethics in theory), the underpinnings of philosphy of science, and Aristotelian/term logic (so you can understand the arguments of later authors prior to propositional logic). In order to understand philosophical thought and argument, it's necessary to have this knowledge, and it's no different than me saying "in the process of studying physics, you have to study geometry" (as a prerequisite to later mathematics). This isn't any different, and putting the study of philosophy in some sort of "philosophy is slow" or "can only be understood in the historical and/or cultural context" box denigrates the entire discipline from a position of ignorance.
bakuninsbart 5y ago
We have to study mathematics before we can understand physics, and we start mathematics by learning Euclid and Pythagoras. The difference between maths and philosophy, and physics, is that the old Greeks were actually really good at the former two.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  At the same time, we do not start the study of chemistry with alchemy and phlogiston.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  Sure, some philosophers of science would say that geometry is part of physics, and in that sense the Greeks laid a good foundation indeed; most, though, would view mathematics merely as something of a prerequisite (akin to general literacy), and Faraday, while regretful of not knowing mathematics, did pretty good without it. (This latter fact should not be underestimated: physics is by its nature an experimental science, but the very idea of this, and that experiment is the sole criterion of truth, has occurred to people only relatively recently.)
mcguire 5y ago
"...unlike in other areas and not unlike with religion (or culture in general) there are many of them - potentially of equal value, - or that philosophy must always be studied and can only be understood in the historical and/or cultural context." On one hand, you will find many people who frequent HN like Stoicism, a philosophy that is over 2000 years old and yet still applicable in many senses. (I personally prefer Epicureanism and Zhuangzi, but that's me.) On the other, I think it would be difficult to understand Kant without being familiar with Hume. Philosophy is not like physics or mathematics. (Some modern analytic philosophers would disagree. They're wrong. They're also not as smart as they think they are. (C'mon, fight me! Anytime, anyplace! I've always got my Junior Philosopher's Secret Decoder Ring and Brass Knuckles with me.)) To expect it to act like physics or mathematics is a mistake. Do you expect progress from a conversation with friends?

freedomben 5y ago

When I studied physics, we did start with Aristotle. In both physics and philosophy you're not studying Ancient Greece necessarily because they are right, you're studying it because understanding the history of thought helps you understand modern thought.

guenthert 5y ago
But how common is that? Where/when I studied, history of science was a different major. Sure, we (undergrad students with physics major) knew about Newton and those inclined as much could study the historic context on their own, but otherwise everything (perhaps short of classic mechanic of the rigid body) before the late nineteenth century was of little interest.

evol262 5y ago

To verify and prove that you have a new, original thought, you essentially need to address everyone who's every written about it before, and their arguments (or at least intermediaries who have already done that). A lot of philosophical texts are "I have this new theory", and the remainder of the text is "so-and-so said this, but they are wrong/my idea is different because...". Think of something like Kant's Metaphysics of Morals. The vast majority of the text is little different from a proof with QED at the end. In physics, you learn formulas, and those can/do build on top of each other (as well as mathematical axioms/shortcuts). Reading Aristotle isn't any different in that sense. You aren't reading Aristotle for The Physics. You're reading it for ethical theory (and virtue ethics in theory), the underpinnings of philosphy of science, and Aristotelian/term logic (so you can understand the arguments of later authors prior to propositional logic). In order to understand philosophical thought and argument, it's necessary to have this knowledge, and it's no different than me saying "in the process of studying physics, you have to study geometry" (as a prerequisite to later mathematics). This isn't any different, and putting the study of philosophy in some sort of "philosophy is slow" or "can only be understood in the historical and/or cultural context" box denigrates the entire discipline from a position of ignorance.

bakuninsbart 5y ago

We have to study mathematics before we can understand physics, and we start mathematics by learning Euclid and Pythagoras. The difference between maths and philosophy, and physics, is that the old Greeks were actually really good at the former two.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago
At the same time, we do not start the study of chemistry with alchemy and phlogiston.
Koshkin 5y ago
Sure, some philosophers of science would say that geometry is part of physics, and in that sense the Greeks laid a good foundation indeed; most, though, would view mathematics merely as something of a prerequisite (akin to general literacy), and Faraday, while regretful of not knowing mathematics, did pretty good without it. (This latter fact should not be underestimated: physics is by its nature an experimental science, but the very idea of this, and that experiment is the sole criterion of truth, has occurred to people only relatively recently.)

mcguire 5y ago

"...unlike in other areas and not unlike with religion (or culture in general) there are many of them - potentially of equal value, - or that philosophy must always be studied and can only be understood in the historical and/or cultural context." On one hand, you will find many people who frequent HN like Stoicism, a philosophy that is over 2000 years old and yet still applicable in many senses. (I personally prefer Epicureanism and Zhuangzi, but that's me.) On the other, I think it would be difficult to understand Kant without being familiar with Hume. Philosophy is not like physics or mathematics. (Some modern analytic philosophers would disagree. They're wrong. They're also not as smart as they think they are. (C'mon, fight me! Anytime, anyplace! I've always got my Junior Philosopher's Secret Decoder Ring and Brass Knuckles with me.)) To expect it to act like physics or mathematics is a mistake. Do you expect progress from a conversation with friends?