Meaning: the History of Western Philosophy

Meaning: the History of Western Philosophy

Copyright 2014 Dr Clinton J de Bruyn

Smashwords Edition

Chapter One: Introduction

To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically.

– Henry David Thoreau

So, what’s the point of life?

When we consider the term philosophy, many images come to mind. To some, it’s of a toga-draped man contemplating (and probably missing out on) life; to others, it’s probably a picture of some pseudo-intellectual running around Paris talking excessively, very much in the Woody Allen mould.

So does this suggest that philosophy is consigned to history, lacking relevance in our lightning-fast world of Facebook and Twitter where information is shared instantly? Isn’t the sum of human knowledge just a Google search away?

To say this is to make a fundamental error, because the speed at which one can access information does not change the content. And much of the content online is remarkably basic, consisting of pleasing but superficial snippets of information with limited or no real value – lots of ‘shiny objects’ to distract us from the serious analysis of fundamental issues.

And while global access to education has spread dramatically, the human perspective on life has arguably been dumbed-down. Most people in the world adopt one of two basic approaches to life – either:

there is a power greater than ourselves (usually called God, although often referred to as ‘nature’ or a higher power) meaning that there is purpose to the universe and we should basically try to do good and be nice to each other. This is the dominant – but declining – world view; or

we are simply the by-product of an evolutionary world, meaning there is no higher power and what you see around you is all that there is. We should trust only what we can prove and develop our own meaning for our lives rather than searching for it (the humanist view, very popular with the intelligentsia since the 1950s).

In a post-industrial system where science seems to provide solid answers to everything, can philosophy really tell us anything useful about the world and our place in it?

A Roman in the Modern World

To answer that question, let’s refer to the Roman politician, writer and philosopher, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) and engage in a bit of time travel.

Cicero was an active statesman in Rome and a strong supporter of the Republic. As well as this, he was the most gifted orator of his day and someone well versed in different schools of knowledge. A powerful intellectual, he was wealthy and lived a materially rich life compared to most Romans of the day. Nevertheless, in his writings he clearly understood the pitfalls of materialism, as well as its benefits.

A model of classical virtue, he ended up dying for the Republic, stating that the will of the people was far superior to the will of one man. His confrontations with Julius Caesar, Marc Anthony and Augustus to defend this principle led to his downfall – and also made him a Republican hero throughout the ages.

Let’s engage in a thought experiment and assume that Cicero was transported into today’s world. What would he think?

Cicero’s views on the modern world

Let’s start with the basics.

It is reasonable to think that a man possessed with the intellectual talents of Cicero would be amazed by the sheer quantity of existing technology and its remarkable effectiveness.

It is also fair to say that with a little help, he would be able to understand the underlying principles of modern technology, although some things (like the production of electricity or the transmission of wireless data) would be understood in the abstract. But, being the intelligent man he is, he would certainly pick up the details eventually.

However, when Cicero was finished looking on in amazement, he would probably ask us how we saw our lives and our purpose in society – and he would almost certainly be less than impressed. In particular, the common approach modern life – that we should just try to enjoy ourselves while we are here, and not speculate on our purpose – would be particularly depressing to him, because it would suggest a level of thoughtlessness, if not selfishness, for our reason to exist.

True, some extreme versions of Epicureanism (such as the Cyrenaics) maintained that immediate, hedonistic pleasure was the best thing to seek even in Cicero’s day. However, as Cicero would likely tell you, this was a fringe movement. To think this approach represented a mainstream view (and that many people openly admit to it) would be quite shocking.

Cicero would likely conclude that even with our remarkable technology – flight, television, antibiotics, life-saving surgery, physics, the Internet – our understanding of what is necessary to live a happy and meaningful life is rudimentary. He would likely suggest our focus on materialism has stopped us from seeing the big picture – our reason for existing.

As a staunch defender of the Roman Republic, Cicero would see the spread of democracy and culture in today’s world as remarkably progressive – maybe even too progressive for him – but he would be appalled at postmodern ideas suggesting all ethical development is relative, with right and wrong being specific to individual cultures and societies.

His main question would probably be why is it that the majority of people in the developed world are so wealthy, with an abundance of material goods compared to the Ancients, yet so unphilosophical about their own lives?

He would probably chastise us for indulging in our largely material life, rather than getting to know ourselves, learning about the world around us and help shaping the society we are a part of.

In summary, Cicero would likely be amazed at the material progress which has occurred from his day to the present, but rather disheartened by the lack of moral and spiritual progress society has achieved, despite over 2000 years of development.

Knowledge vs wisdom

The point of this story is to illustrate that while knowledge and scientific development has increased dramatically over the ages, the application of wisdom has been far more limited. While we are at a high point in terms of our technological development, at the start of the 21st Century many people have failed to confront the most critical questions – the reason for the existence of the universe and their place in it.

In beginning to determine the meaning of life, most people ask themselves the following fundamental questions:

Why do I exist?

What is my purpose?

From this, a number of further questions arise:

Is there a God (or higher power) in the universe?

If God does not exist and the Universe is just a cosmic accident, does my life have any meaning? If not, can I create meaning for myself?

Do I have free will, or are my actions controlled by some external force?

How do I know if I am making the right choices in my life?

How can I maximise my potential and the potential of others? How can I be a better person?

Does material development represent true progress and do the things I own really make me feel happy?

Most importantly – what is the point of it all?

These are the key questions that have been asked again and again, over at least the last 2500 years. Yet we have come no closer to definitively answering questions concerning the purpose of our life, despite our faith, suspicions or intuitions.

Put simply, while human knowledge – the how – has increased substantially through all of history, human wisdom – the why – has barely changed at all.

The history of philosophy

All is not lost. Because humanity has been around for a long time, we have a wide store of ideas to access and explore. The real issue is not the speed at which people can access information, but the challenge of information overload and the quality of information one can obtain. As such, this book attempts to sort through the clutter and present the philosophies which have most influenced western culture.

This book begins by examining the bright young things of early Greek Philosophy, the Presocratics, as well as Socrates himself (Chapter Two). From there, the three dominant philosophies of the Ancient World are examined: the idealist philosophy of Plato (Chapter Three) the austere, virtuous school of Stoicism (Chapter Four) and the more materialist school of Epicureanism (Chapter Five).

We then skip the Middle Ages and move forward to examine 18th Century Liberalism (Chapter Six), the idea which supports individual freedom, the free market and contributed to overthrowing monarchs. The remarkable reaction to Liberalism is contained in Marxism (Chapter Seven) which has influenced the world of politics considerably, even now having an influence on the world most people don’t realise.

Finally, we finish our journey with Existentialism (Chapter Eight), a very European philosophy based on examining one’s own mortality and the consequences of the fact that we don’t live forever.

Unfortunately, a focus on influential ethical philosophers has meant that many other worthwhile philosophers have been excluded. I particularly regret not being able to provide a separate section on Aristotle and his golden mean (although he is mentioned from time to time), the Neo-Platonist Plotinus, Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper.

As important as these individuals are, they do not directly fit into the scope of this work. Additionally, as this book is focused on western philosophy, eastern forms of thought are also not considered, despite their undisputed validity to human thought and practice.

I have also omitted religious philosophies. As interesting as it would be to provide a chapter on religious thought (e.g. Christian theology or the ethics of Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism), such theological approaches are out of scope. Still, in the last 25 years religious movements have been constantly understated in the history of human development, particularly in terms of the effects religions have on people’s behaviour – you might be surprised just how many of today’s cultural norms are derived from religion, even now.

Philosophical ideas are by their nature conjectural and I have taken liberties in order to convey certain ideas as simply as possible. While I have attempted to be accurate and honest, any misinterpretations of the philosophical schools presented are of course my own.

I am hopeful this book will provide a clearer understanding of the schools of knowledge which have changed the world, whether you are reading this as a university student or for personal pleasure. I hope you enjoy discovering these powerful ideas – ideas which have occupied the human mind for centuries and which have literally changed the world.

Dr Clinton J de Bruyn

Brisbane, 2014

Chapter Two: The Beginning

The Presocratics and Socrates

So where did it all start?

The first seeds of western philosophy are difficult to trace. By approximately 1000 B.C., poetry, literature and mythology were combined, extending beyond purely personal beliefs bolstered by poetic prose. At this point, western writings began to show a degree of reasoned, logical analysis – the seeds of philosophy and science.

Consider the following passage from Homer’s Illiad (thought to have been written between 1000-800 B.C). It is the earliest written Greek work to survive:

So, friend, you die also. Why all this clamour about it? Patroclos also is dead, who was better by far than you are. Do you not see what a man I am, how huge, how splendid and born of a great father, and the mother who bore me immortal? Yet even I have also my death and my strong destiny, and there shall be a dawn or an afternoon or a noontime when some man in the fighting will take the life from me also either with a spear cast or an arrow flown from the bowstring.

– Homer, Illiad (XXI 106-13)

General concepts such as fate and the meaning