Just a Thought

Philosophy as we know it began in Greece about 2,500 years ago. No one else anywhere on Earth had done anything like that before.

That really blew my mind at first. Because philosophy consists of things which are really familiar to us: thinking about the nature of reality, of perception, etc etc.

But then I had this thought: perhaps people had always thought about such things, and had always talked about such things, but before Greece, ca 500 BC, it had simply never occurred to anyone to write it down.

So for example, in Babylon in 2500 BC, two temple scribes could be taking a break and talking, speculating about how far away the moon was, and whether matter was composed of one substance or four substances or many substances; and then it was like, "Okay, break's over. I wish we could keep talking about these interesting things, but we have to get back to work, and think of three dozen more things to compare the king to."

Socrates, not the first philosopher but within 100 years of the first philosopher, and the most influential of all of them so far, never wrote any philosophy. He talked to people. That was his full-time job. And then after he was executed, his pupil Plato wrote down those conversations. That's what all of Plato's works are: conversations starring Socrates.

So maybe the explanation of why there isn't any earlier philosophy is staring us right in the face in the form of the best-known philosophy of all time, of some of the oldest: there was earlier philosophy, but it was all just conversations, so it never got recorded, never got organized, just blew away like dead leaves in the wind.

 

Looking For a Prehistory of the Presocratics

I recently published a post on this blog in which I stated that I didn't believe that philosophy began with the Pre-Socratics -- not because I actually knew anything about cultures previous to the Pre-Socratics, but because the notion that the pre-Socratics could've invented philosophy on their own struck me as prima facie absurd. A century or two after the Pre-Socratics, the author of Ecclesiastes stated that there was nothing new under the sun, and this matched the impression I had that cultures borrowed things from other cultures which had borrowed them other cultures, with many modifications, to be sure, but rarely with anything completely new. There was certainly nothing new, or unique to the ancient Greeks, in a reluctance for one culture to acknowledge its debts to another.

The wrong way around, after publishing the blog post instead of before, I attempted to track down some confirmation of its thesis.

And I'm still looking. Martin L West, in his book The East Face of Helicon, Oxford, 2003 edition, says on p vii: "I am not concerned with Oriental contributions to science and philosophy," and I also could not deduce any from among the huge number of Mesopotamian literary, mythical and other cultural influences upon Greece demonstrated in West's book (which is superb and which I highly recommend).

Marc Van de Mieroop's book Philosophy Before the Greeks, Princeton, 2017 edition, did not show me that which its title describes, nor, apart from an assertion that Pythagorean triples were in use in Mesopotamia 1000 years before Pythagoras -- an assertion which did not come with a footnote which would aid someone hoping to confirm it -- did Walter Burkert's contribution, "Prehistory of Presocratic Philosophy in an Orientalizing Context," to The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy, Oxford, 2011, p 55. Perhaps I should read them again, more slowly.

Or perhaps I should show more respect to an academic consensus, even when it contradicts my sense of what is prima facie obvious. Perhaps, when there is widespread astonishment among the experts at some achievement, as there is in the case of the achievement of Pre-Socratic philosophy, I should be more open to the possibility that the astonishment is justified. Astonishment is what I'm feeling more and more as I search for philosophical predecessors of the Pre-Socratics and -- sorry, Dr Van de Mieroop, sorry, Dr Burkert -- keep finding none.

The Origins of Philosophy

From the Hellenistic age down to our own, Aristotle and Plato have been very widely studied in "the West." Aristotle studied under Plato; Plato and others sat adoringly at the feet of Socrates; Socrates learned among the last of the pre-Socratics; and the first pre-Socratics, as we all know, sprang, fully-formed and philosophizing away, from the brow of Zeus.

What?! There was no philosophy before the pre-Socratics? Yes, that's exactly what it says here, on p 10 of Wisdom of the West by Bertrand Russell, London, 1959:

"Philosophy and science, as we now know them, are Greek inventions[...]Philosophy and science begin with Thales of Miletus in the early sixth century BC."

Okay then. That's all cleared up. And what exactly is philosophy? Russell covers that too, same book, same page:

"Philosophy begins when someone asks a general question."

Got it!

Seriously, though: although I find Russell to be eminently sensible almost all of the time, what he is saying here is absurd. Even though, as far as I have been able to determine -- I don't know how far that is -- very few "Western" scholars seem to be saying anything different about how philosophy, or at least "Western" philosophy, began.

One of the few exceptions is Arthur Schopenhauer. In his Parerga und Paralipomena, part I, in the chapter "Fragmente zur Geschichte der Philosophie," in the section on the Pre-Socratics (Saemtliche Werke, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt aM, 4th printing, 1996, vol 4, pp 45-56), Schopenhauer points out how some of the positions of the pre-Socratics are anticipated in Egypt and in the Brahmanic philosophy of the Vedas. He even mentions (p 56) Apuleius' assertion that Pythagoras had traveled as far as India, and been personally schooled by Brahmans.

You might say that it's absurd to accept Apuleius' account, written well over half a millennium after Pythagoras' death, as anything more than an amusing anecdote. And you might be right about that. But is it more absurd than assuming that no Brahmanic, or Egyptian, or Phoenician, or Babylonian, or other philosophy found its way to Greece before the career of Thales was over?

I submit that what began with the Greek pre-Socratics is that the individual tidbits of wisdom began to be preserved in connection with the names of individual wise people. A very significant development, and even more so to authors concerned about receiving the proper credit for their work than it may be to the public at large.

But to arbitrarily advance several thousand large steps past that and flatly assert that before Thlaes, no-one, anywhere, had ever stopped and asked what it all means, is, I must say so in all directness, thoroughly absurd.

And I say so even though I have only found one Western philosopher, Schopenhauer, who also says so. I have found many "Eastern" scholars, and laypeople from all parts of the Earth, who agree with me on this point. It's not the only point in which I feel that Schopenhauer and I are a bit lonely. There's also the matter of Hegel. There are so very many perfectly intelligent scholars who admire Hegel so very much. And yet, when I read Hegel, I see what Schopenhauer describes: an empty-headed charlatan, a pseudo-intellectual par excellence, a sheer horse's ass who is shamelessly wasting everybody's time. A Sam Harris of the early 19th century.

There is yet another point where I find myself and many, many other laypeople on one side, and almost every single Western scholar on the other: the scholars almost all state quite flatly that it is quite certain that Jesus existed, and is not merely a fictional character in a myth, a character perhaps cobbled together from the biographies of John the Baptist and some other real people.

I do not take it at all lightly when the academic consensus is so overwhelmingly against me. It troubles me, it truly does. But no academic consensus will persuade me to stop thinking for myself.