The History of Western Philosophy - Jewish Religious Development

Some interesting notes on early Judaism:

“The early history of the Israelites cannot be confirmed from any source outside the Old Testament, and it is impossible to know at what point it ceased to be purely legendary. David and Solomon may be accepted as kings who probably had a real existence, but at the earliest point at which we come to something certainly historical there are already the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah.” p. 309

In 596 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, destroying the Temple and removed a large part of the Jewish population to Babylon. Babylon fell in 538 B.C., and the new king Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, allowed the Jews to return to Palestine under the leadership of Nehemiah and Ezra. The “temple was rebuilt, and Jewish orthodoxy began to be crystallized.” p. 310

It is during this time that Jewish thought underwent an important change. The first commandment stating “Thou shalt have no other gods but me” is a new belief preceding this time of captivity. This is the first indication that worship of other gods was sinful. This, in turn, was used to explain why the Jews were being persecuted - for their worship of heathen gods. After the return from Babylon, Ezra and Nehemiah forbid and dissolved mixed marriages in Jerusalem.

“After Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews disappear awhile from history. The Jewish state survived as a theocracy, but its territory was very small - only the region of ten to fifteen miles around Jerusalem.” p. 313

It is surprising to me to me that this 10 to 15 mile ring around Jerusalem continued the Judaic religion until 175 B.C. when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV attempted to Hellenize the Jewish population. This was vehemently opposed by the mostly rural Hasidm, who prompted the Jews to rebel when Antiochus became involved in a war with Egypt. Apparently Antiochus decided to destroy the Jewish religion by outlawing circumcision and the practice of abstaining from pork. The urban Jews apparently submitted, but the rural Jews resisted. This period is known as the First Book of Maccabees. This period of persecution reinforced Jews’ belief that salvation lies in the hereafter. Also, “in enduring and resisting persecution the Jews of this time showed immense heroism, although in defence of things that do not strike us as important, such as circumcision and the eating of pork.” p. 316.

“The time of the persecution by Antiochus IV was crucial in Jewish history. The Jews of the Dispersion were, at this time, becoming more and more hellenized; the Jews of Judea were few; and even among them the rich and powerful were inclined to acquiesce in Greek innovations. But for the heroic resistance of the Hasidim, the Jewish religion might easily have died out. If this had happened, neither Christianity nor Islam could have existed in anything like the form they actually took.” p. 316

The History of Western Philosophy - Socrates

Socrates looms large in Philosophy's history, but, as Russell notes, "is a very difficult subject for the historian." Russell outlines some notes that are generally accepted as being true:

- "He was undoubtedly an Athenian citizen of moderate means" and well-known.
- He educated the young and, unlike the Sophists, did so for free
- He was tried, convicted and executed in a trial around 399 B.C. on the charge that "Socrates is an evil-doer and a curious person, searching into things under the earth and above the heaven; and making the worse appear the better cause, and teaching all this to others."

Russell relates how most of our knowledge of Socrates comes from two men. One of these was Xenophon, a military man whose intelligence has been called into question by a variety of historians and seems biased towards Socrates as he never discusses what caused Socrates to be persecuted. Russell therefore states that any of Xenophon's discussions of Socrates's philosophy cannot be trusted, but Xenophon's historical accounts of Socrates seem to be reliable and corroborated. The second person is Plato - one of Socrates's students and a witness to his trial. Russell states that although Plato's intelligence is obvious, his writing can be called into question precisely because Plato is a gifted writer:

"Plato... is an imaginative writer of great genius and charm... His Socrates is a consistent and extraordinarily interesting character, far beyond the power of most men to invent; but I think Plato could have invented him. Whether he did so, of course, is another question."

The most famous account of Socrates is Plato's Apology - the speech that Socrates made in defense of himself at his trial. Plato himself admits that this is not a word-for-word retelling and that literary license was taken. However, Russell notes that Plato was present and that Plato's intention is "broadly speaking, historical."

Socrates was put on trial, Russell believes, mainly due to his antagonism towards the aristocracy, of which Socrates was a member. He was convicted of basically corrupting the young. The prosecutor called for death, and in Athenian law, the defense was allowed to propose a lesser punishment. Russell posits that if Socrates wished to avoid death, he could have easily done so by countering the death penalty with a large, substantial fine that would have been paid for by Socrates's benefactors, including Plato. Instead, Socrates countered with an insignificant fine and thus, the death penalty stood.

Socrates is well-known for using the dialectic method to great affect; that is, the method of question and answer to seek knowledge. Russell notes that although Socrates did not invent this method (Zeno, a student of Parmenides is credited with this and with using it on Socrates), he most certainly refined it. Russell also notes that if the way Socrates's use of the dialectic method in the Apology is in any way truthful, it is not difficult to see why "all the humbugs in Athens would combine against him."

Russell then explains that Socrates was most concerned with ethics as the dialectic method does not answer questions that have to deal with empirical science. When Socrates attempts to do so in regards to Geometry in some of Plato's later dialogues, Russell states that he asks leading questions that any judge would disallow. Russell says that although this slowed later philosophers' scientific progress, Socrates's use of the dialectic method was excellent at uncovering logical errors - a useful trait.

"Perhaps 'philosophy' might be defined as the sum-total of those inquires that can be pursued by Plato's methods. But if this definition is appropriate, that is because of Plato's influence upon subsequent philosophers."

The History of Western Philosophy - Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles

I don't have a whole lot to relate about the philosophers I've been reading about. I'm really making this post just to beat the number of posts I made in the entirety of 2010 (4). This is the FIFTH post I've made in 2011. Whew - glad I'm over that hurdle!

So, here's what I've got:

Heraclitus: everything changes
Parmenides: nothing changes
Empedocles: "Great Empedocles, the ardent soul, leapt into Etna, and was roasted whole." There's also the trifle that he discovered air as a separate substance. Oh yeah, he hated beans, too (see Pythagoras). Maybe his discovery of air and hatred of beans was a result of bath farts. There's a hypothesis!

The History of Western Philosophy - Pythagoras

(click for bigger picture)

Who thought reading a history of Philosophy would be funny? Regarding Pythagoras, credited with first developing deductive reasoning, Russell offers this:

Pythagoras is one of the most interesting and puzzling men in history. Not only are the traditions concerning him an almost inextricable mixture of truth and falsehood, but even in their barest and least disputable form they present us with a very curious psychology. He may be described, briefly, as a combination of Einstein and Mrs. Eddy. He founded a religion, of which the main tenets were the transmigration of souls and the sinfulness of eating beans. His religion was embodied in a religious order, which, here and there, acquired control of the State and established a rule of the saints. But the unregenerate hankered after beans, and sooner or later rebelled.

That's hilarious! "Hankered after beans!" Okay, maybe not Greg-Giraldo-hilarious, but pretty funny for a history of Philosophy. Right? Ahem.

The History of Western Philosophy

I started "The History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell today. He is a skilled, direct writer. I am encouraged by this as a broad and deep topic does not need to be hampered by imprecise and/or pretentious prose.

From the "introductory:"

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge - so I should contend - belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's land is Philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. Is the world divided into mind and matter, and, if so, what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subject to matter, or is it possessed of independent powers? Has the universe any unity or purpose? Is it evolving towards some goal? Are there really laws of nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of order? Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of impure carbon and water impotently crawling on a small and unimportant planet? Or is he what he appears to Hamlet? Is he perhaps both at once? Is there a way of living that is noble, in what does it consist, and how shall we achieve it? Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be valued, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is inexorably moving towards death? Is there such a thing as wisdom, or is what seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly? To such questions, no answers can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all too definite; but their very definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy.

He goes on to explain why it's relevant to pursue this seemingly Sisyphean endeavor - "To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it."

It's been a long time since I've changed the oil in the brainpan - this feels daunting, but also very refreshing.