2 ms·
> your reference on this? It’s not a single line but rather a mental model I found that makes reading what he wrote seem more consistent. I can support the ar
by Retric 1y ago
> your reference on this?
It’s not a single line but rather a mental model I found that makes reading what he wrote seem more consistent. I can support the argument, but there’s a reason people write long books about several thousand year old works.
Trying to wade through ancient philosophy even when reading translations is a difficult process as they fundamentally think in different terms. For us the moon and the stars are just different physical places we could in theory visit, I’ve touched moon rock and seen photos taken on other planets. However, for much of human history it wouldn’t seem unreasonable to treat the stars as other. I can’t really prove how someone thought that, but it definitely fits a great deal of writing.
- kragen 1y agoBut a thing that has remained constant from Classical Athens until maybe 150 years ago is that everyone involved understood that physics was a branch of philosophy. Some of them favored one theory of physics, some favored another, but nobody argued that the other schools of thought on the matter weren't philosophical; they merely disagreed with their philosophical conclusions. Plato and his Academy didn't, as far as anybody knows, consider Aristotle to be a non-philosopher; he presumably considered him ti be mistaken. Even today, if you become formally recognized for your contributions to physics, the recognition comes in the form of naming you a "doctor of philosophy" and calling your work "academic". There's a current fad for using an incoherent definition of "philosophy" that arbitrarily excludes fields of philosophy such as physics, but hopefully it will end in another century or two.