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

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

Studying the Beginning of Philosophy through the Milesians

Learning about the first philosophers like the Milesians was important to me for understanding the characteristics of the history of philosophy. The school of thought of the Milesians taught that the explanation to their questions and inquiries were found in the principles of matter. The three Milesians Patricia Curd talks about in her book A Presocratics Reader are Thales (the founder), Anaximander (his pupil), Anaximenes (the youngest). It was helpful for me to compare them to understand the nature of the beginnings of philosophy. Previously, it was implied that philosophy surged from the mytho-poetic traditions that inspired the earliest philosophers. Can we say that this is true from Thales, the “founder of philosophy”? The three Milesians knew that the question to all their answers relied on a principle. The principle is differently defined per each philosopher. Thales’ principle is that water is the basic unit of life, the arkhē, the beginning and origin. This sounds like ...
1 comment
Read more

Xenophanes a Reformer?

As we progress on our studies of the Presocratics, I am starting to see a deviation from the traditional thinking of the greeks. Homer presents us with gods who are human like and to some extent mundane, that do the same things as humans. I have a feeling that the Milesians' quest for an arche  based on matter, physical things that are unique and "pure" like the water, air, and infinity, reflects the search for an origin different than the Homeric gods. An origin that is different from the human nature, savage and mundane. According to A Presocratic Reader , Xenophanes rejected the Homeric Olympian gods. Although the book suggests that it is unclear if he agreed on one god or a god superior to all gods, he is the first philosopher to suggest a non-anthropomorfic god. A god that is unique for itself. Was he inspired by Anaximander's principle of the apeiron, that which is the boundless and mystical? I feel the he was indeed, because Anaximander's principle is the...
1 comment
Read more