• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great

JC Callender

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
3,270
Location
Metro Detroit
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Socrates taught Plato, Plato taught Aristotle, Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. These four are in the top twelve of a list I was reading of the most influential people in history. Does anyone know, in short, what motivated this to happen? I'm not looking for what they taught one another....more like outside influences.

The Most Influential People of All Time
 
Socrates taught Plato, Plato taught Aristotle, Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. These four are in the top twelve of a list I was reading of the most influential people in history. Does anyone know, in short, what motivated this to happen? I'm not looking for what they taught one another....more like outside influences.

The Most Influential People of All Time

Ancient Greece was a centurys-long intellectual explosion the likes of which, proportional to population, I do not think has ever been seen elsewhere except perhaps in the ongoing phenomenon of the modern Jews. The Greeks were also the military class of Europe and the Middle East from the small beginning at Marathon to the spectacular conquests of Alexander.

I do not think there is a discoverable explanation for what they did.
 
Socrates taught Plato, Plato taught Aristotle, Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. These four are in the top twelve of a list I was reading of the most influential people in history. Does anyone know, in short, what motivated this to happen? I'm not looking for what they taught one another....more like outside influences.

The Most Influential People of All Time

You may have better luck in figuring out not what motivated those people to teaching or influencing one another, but why this succession of knowledge abruptly ended for about fifteen hundred years... when it started up again with the enlightenment - when people finally realized that religion is a fantasy and Christianity is just a human imagination.
 
You may have better luck in figuring out not what motivated those people to teaching or influencing one another, but why this succession of knowledge abruptly ended for about fifteen hundred years... when it started up again with the enlightenment - when people finally realized that religion is a fantasy and Christianity is just a human imagination.

Are you saying Christianity impeded the progress of knowledge?
 
Are you saying Christianity impeded the progress of knowledge?

Yes! Provably so.

It took several centuries to realize that Epicurus' argument about divinity and evil, is wrong by definition. What was a block in the social experience in the Western World at least, was Christianity.

And it still is.
 
Are you saying Christianity impeded the progress of knowledge?

Almost certainly it did for the better part of a thousand years. St. Thomas helped bring that to an end--he, a disciple of Aristotle.
 
Yes! Provably so.

It took several centuries to realize that Epicurus' argument about divinity and evil, is wrong by definition. What was a block in the social experience in the Western World at least, was Christianity.

And it still is.

What does Epicurus have to do with Christianity? And any idea why Christianity impeded the progress of knowledge?
 
What does Epicurus have to do with Christianity? And any idea why Christianity impeded the progress of knowledge?

Epicurus logically proved that there are no gods.
 
Epicurus logically proved that there are no gods.

Is this the argument you're talking about?:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
 
Is this the argument you're talking about?:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Mostly, yes.

There were more godly arguments in his time that he dealt with, but the one you presented is good enough for this discussion board.

No religious authority or scholar has been ever able to answer these questions.

But the fact that there are no gods does not primarily depend on this line of argument. It's that no claim for a god was, has, would, could, or will ever be substantiated.

Still, we have to give credit to a mind that was able to state this reality - that no gods exist - so many years ago.
 
Mostly, yes.

There were more godly arguments in his time that he dealt with, but the one you presented is good enough for this discussion board.

No religious authority or scholar has been ever able to answer these questions.

But the fact that there are no gods does not primarily depend on this line of argument. It's that no claim for a god was, has, would, could, or will ever be substantiated.

Still, we have to give credit to a mind that was able to state this reality - that no gods exist - so many years ago.

If depends on whether or not someone views free will as a good thing. Free will gives one the ability to choose, and you have to have wrongs (bads, evils, etc...) in order to have good. If everything were always good, one wouldn't know it to be good because there would be no standard, just one simple way of being.

Jesus came along and taught people about loving one another, even those we don't like. I'm not sure how that impedes knowledge.
 
Jesus came along and taught people about loving one another, even those we don't like. I'm not sure how that impedes knowledge.

You can obviously see the reality that white people hate any minority people, and their religion supports that hate.
 
Jesus came along and taught people about loving one another, even those we don't like. I'm not sure how that impedes knowledge.
"jesus teaching to love others" is not "religion".

When Paralogic claims religion impeded science, I am certain he did not mean that one trait of that one prophet of that one religion as being "religion" in this context.
Remember JC, we still have powerful/wealthy/educated people today claiming young earth, fossil fiction, etc., in these cases in spite of direct overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Religion being good or bad is largely irrelevant. Like every system of belief, it has pros/cons. It may be bad today, but whose to say it was bad at what time for which people? Its subjective. Some may argue that religion prior to science is an incredible tool for holding a society together and defeating competing societies. People who will fight to die for a god may have an edge against those who don't, for example. Is that a good or bad thing?

In any case, the impact of science and reason should be fairly obvious. As to influences, that's a deep historical matter. There were many influences on each. All great work, and works always rely greatly on those who came before. There were countless layman scientists...wise women, savvy primitives, etc., each of which may have figured out one or two things, and passed it on, etc. At some point there is a critical mass both of learning, and of leisure time, and the two collide to result in identifying and codifying knowledge. Who did it, the names, the people...these are just touchstones. And it sells magazines. The realty is that we are all hopefully moving our lives forward...to what end I do not know, but improving it before we die...that seems to be one commendable way to approach it right?
 
Last edited:
You may have better luck in figuring out not what motivated those people to teaching or influencing one another, but why this succession of knowledge abruptly ended for about fifteen hundred years... when it started up again with the enlightenment - when people finally realized that religion is a fantasy and Christianity is just a human imagination.

It didn't end abruptly. In between Aristotle and the enlightenment we had enormous strides in the field of mathematics. Everything from negative numbers to: algebra, trigonometry, and calculus was developed in the period between Aristotle and the Enlightenment; heck even the concept of zero as a number comes from the 9th century. During that period of time we have such illustrious minds as: Euclid, Archimedes, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Descartes, and Pascal. We also have the inventions of: glass blowing, steam engines, the astrolabe, turbines, the printing press, the telescope, the compass, and even the thermometer. Entire fields of study were developed during this period of time as natural philosophy gave way to physics, alchemy to chemistry, and cell theory spawned Biology. Modern universities were first established during that period of time as scholasticism began to take over in the early middle ages. Heck, even the modern scientific method itself was pioneered by Roger Bacon at Oxford university in the early middle ages (which led directly to galileo, Copernicus, et al. 's discoveries).

So, perhaps a better question than why succession of knowledge abruptly ended for fifteen hundred years (which, it didn't); is why there are otherwise intelligent people on this world who are that ignorant of history.
 
It didn't end abruptly. In between Aristotle and the enlightenment we had enormous strides in the field of mathematics. Everything from negative numbers to: algebra, trigonometry, and calculus was developed in the period between Aristotle and the Enlightenment; heck even the concept of zero as a number comes from the 9th century. During that period of time we have such illustrious minds as: Euclid, Archimedes, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Descartes, and Pascal. We also have the inventions of: glass blowing, steam engines, the astrolabe, turbines, the printing press, the telescope, the compass, and even the thermometer. Entire fields of study were developed during this period of time as natural philosophy gave way to physics, alchemy to chemistry, and cell theory spawned Biology. Modern universities were first established during that period of time as scholasticism began to take over in the early middle ages. Heck, even the modern scientific method itself was pioneered by Roger Bacon at Oxford university in the early middle ages (which led directly to galileo, Copernicus, et al. 's discoveries).

So, perhaps a better question than why succession of knowledge abruptly ended for fifteen hundred years (which, it didn't); is why there are otherwise intelligent people on this world who are that ignorant of history.

DAMMIT!...now I have to put crab cakes on the grocery list.
 
Back
Top Bottom