Skip to main content

What we value, truth or knowledge?

Last time I ended class with this thought: Xenophanes changed the Homeric views on god. It helps us question if religions define god for what it truly is. With the progression of their theories, I see the Milesians and Xenophanes and think that maybe the mind needs to be constantly evolving to get closer to the truth.

Reading Pythagoras made me think about the relationship between truth and knowledge.
Curd shows us a fragment were Plato makes a parallel between Homer and Pythagoras. They look alike in the fact that they both had people that followed them. The major distinction is Pythagoras striving for knowledge, his followers the mathematikoi and akousmatikoi both looking to gain knowledge in what they each venerated, while Homer convinced his followers by  his stories that reflected some of the truth about their society.  

Curd mentions this fragment “Much learning does not teach insight. Otherwise it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and moreover Xenphanes and Hecataeus.” Does that mean that truth and knowledge cannot have a relationship? To what extent can knowledge skew you from the path of the truth? Pythagoras was hugely known for constructing his wisdom, his theory on numbers setting the order for existence. There is some truth about this knowledge on numbers but did this bring him closer to the truth? Maybe not as much because he was ridiculed for his theory on transmigration of souls. This is a question that I still do not know how to answer, but I thought that it was an important observation to make.

In addition to all that was said, the path that early philosophers took to develop the concept of morality is getting more evident. As it is known the akousmatikoi is the branch of Pythagoreans who are not solely philosophical but pursue the proper way to live. This is showing that there is starting to be a sense of what is right or wrong, no matter if the way in which the akousmatikoi lived was the right way.

Comments

  1. Anne-Marie SchultzJanuary 24, 2017 at 6:14 AM

    That is a good question about the relationship between truth and knowledge and insight. I would say the relationship is less necessary than we think.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJanuary 25, 2017 at 9:24 PM

    I think that what the fragment is saying is that despite learning many different things, they were far from being able to see the world in a coherent and accurate way, organizing their disparate bits of knowledge appropriately.
    Traditionally knowledge is thought to include access to truth. But maybe we can distinguish a kind of truth that involves the Person, and not just the person's beliefs, making contact with reality...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The way of the Truth

Parmenides differs from the rest of the pre-socratics previously studied (the Milesians, Xenophanes, Heraclitus and Pythagoras) in that his thought transcend the material into the abstract, asking questions about our existence and reality, essentially a start to the arena of metaphysics. Parmenides  is an example of the way we should elevate our minds into the abstract. It is an invitation to live in a more contemplative way, contemplating using logic and reasoning. Through his poem and the imagery of roads and paths, he describes our reality as having two ways the way of the Truth and the way of Opinion. The way of the Truth is the road less traveled by regular people, they go for the way of Opinion. The way of Opinion is based on the experiences that we live day to day, what we see right in front of our eyes. The way of the Truth is the one you want to be in to live well. To live in this way you have to understand the concepts of the "what is" and "what is not"....
2 comments
Read more

Aristotle- The Politics Book 1

The Politics is a book dedicated to concepts of state, political communities. Aristotle starts his writing by defining state as a community of communities. All communities  aim for a good. The state is the largest community and embraces the rest. Because of this relationship, it aims at a deeper and larger good. Aristotle debunks the qualifications and conceptions people have for rulers of a certain community (king, statesman, householder, master). The mistake he identifies is people differentiating between rulers by the number of their subjects. Aristotle suggests politics should not be viewed this way but rather as a compound composed of elements. This statement sets the tone for book 1. His mission now is to reveal these elements.  According to Aristotle, looking at the origin will reveal "the clearest view" of the essence of a state. Family is first elements identified. Family is the union of people, starting with that of man and woman, who need each...
Post a Comment
Read more

Eye for an Eye- Book 1 of The Republic of Plato

The first section of Book 1 was really interesting. Specially because I enjoyed the way Socrates has conversations with people, questioning everything they say and hence making them reflect about what they just said. This is an example of how dialoguing can help you create new ways of thinking. I will write about the first two conversations he has. The first one with the respectable Cephalus.  The talk between Socrates and Cephalus reminded me of the talks my parents and I have before I come back to college after a break. Socrates, thought, is clearly more willing to ask questions to the elders than I normally am. Socrates eagerly, with a tone of respect, wants to know how Cephalus directs his life. Socrates learns from the wisdom of an old man.   It is interesting because it reminded me of Plato’s Pheado where Socrates is summing up his life moments before dying in the presence of other philosophers. This is a foreshadowing of what he will do when its close to his last m...
1 comment
Read more