Greek culture influenced Roman scientific culture and Rome adopted ancient Grecian scientific authors. Philosophy’s story in Western civilization started in ancient Greece that produced the three greatest thinkers of the world, namely, Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. Socrates was a famous philosophical figure in history based on the fact that he did not develop his opinions from the air. Instead, he was the outgrowth of the outstandingly fertile philosophical surroundings in Greece that had been evolving for several centuries. Pre-Socratic philosophy was the early period.
Besides, more than 100 philosophers enthusiastically contributed to its achievements. The Greek philosophers theorized and contemplated several different ideas and concepts such as ethics, human nature, and moral dilemmas. The Greek philosophers may be classified into three main groups: the Post-Socratics, the Socratics, and the Pre-Socratics. The essays examines the Greek culture of scholars getting together and discussing the ideas developed by later scientific authors.
Early Greek philosophers (Pre-Socratic philosophers)
A few early Greek philosophers of the 6th century BCE began forming theories about the natural formations of the cosmos that went beyond the commonly held beliefs of the divine beings in the sky. Pre-Socratic philosophers would hypothesize but they did not have any evidence to support any of their claims. These philosophers also centered on three primary issues. The first was the problem of the one and many; explaining how one basic idea may be the source of many different aspects. The world has a huge range of objects, some are living, others are inanimate; some liquid, others solid. It is logical to propose that all stuff emanate from a type of stuff or common source.
However, identifying the common source becomes a challenge. The second is the issue of constancy and change, illustrating how things are constant as they transform over time. There are many forms of aspects in this world, even though each one is subjected to transformation. Inanimate objects such as rocks weather away and transform their form; living organisms such as trees and plants grow old and die. When the aspects they see change, there is nothing about them that allows them to preserve their identity.
Relativism was the third problem determining if principles are created by persons or absolute. Suppose that one arrives at some logical explanation of how this universe operates. Has this explanation, true for him, revealed something universal that should be true for everybody? Whereas some truths could seem to be independent of a person, identifying those truths remains a challenge. The Pre-Socratic philosophers’ theories were, therefore, daring and to some extent being peculiar.
Pre-Socratic philosophers were the first to enter into the unexplored territories of both science and philosophy. These philosophers explored virtually any explanation of aspects that appeared logical and due to this, there is diversity and richness of their opinions that we have never seen. Pre-Socratic philosophers’ books never survived intact apart from some scattered sentences and summaries extracted from their works quoted by later writers such as Aristotle and Plato.
“The e Pre-Socratic’s were not, however, primarily scientists, much fewer astronomers, and observation of actual celestial phenomena seem to have played a relatively minor role in their thinking.” Using the quotation fragments, we are tasked with reconstructing their initial opinions. At times a clear picture emerges; other times we experience a case of guesswork. In essence, to explain and understand nature, they rarely applied careful observational experiments or data to support their assertions.
By the 5th century – philosophers such as Anaxagoras and Empedocles were shown to understand the causes of both solar and lunar eclipses. They understood that the moon gets its light from the sun, and solar eclipses occurred when the moon blocked the sun from the earth. This begins a period in time where they are able to give evidence to their claims. Anaxagoras asserted that the world was comprised of seeds (infinitely divisible portions of ingredients) that are set in the motion by the cosmic mind.
He once asserted that the sun was a mass of burning iron and not the divine being as mythologists asserted. The act was considered irreligion and made him be sentenced to death. In this case, citizens considered him for speaking the truth. He also as Empedocles asserted that cosmos is made up of several material ingredients and not a single one. Besides, he stated that all of these ingredients swirl around the cosmic blender, and form individual things such as trees and rocks as they go around.
The philosophy of Anaxagoras implied that the cosmos material ingredients existed in a completely vacuumless atmosphere. Whereas today people presume that material things are floating in empty space, Anaxagoras refuted it, holding that all the material stuff swirled around in the cosmic blender is packed solid without empty areas. The second characteristic of Anaxagoras theory was all things are infinitely divisible. Anaxagoras makes his opinion as “All things were together, infinite both in amount and in smallness, for the small, too, was infinite.
And because all things were together, nothing was distinguishable on account of its smallness; for air and earth covered all things, both being infinite, for these are the most important [ingredients] in the total mixture both in number and in size.” Based on Anaxagoras theory was all things are infinitely divisible characteristic of his theory there are piles of earth within piles of earth. Deep within the world’s tiny elements, there are many worlds made up of tinnier elements. The worlds are the same as ours and have animals, farms, cities, and people.
The fourth Anaxagoras characteristic of his opinion was encapsulated in his statement that “A portion of everything is in everything.” For example, suppose we have four prime material ingredients in the cosmic blender, namely air, earth, water, and fire (surviving writings of Anaxagoras do not have the list of elements). Assuming the rock in a person’s front year is made up of 97% earth, 1% water, 1% air, and 1% fire. Regardless of how small the piece of rock one analyzes, it will have the same portions of the four material ingredients.
Anaxagoras explains that the portions of the small and of the great are equal in amount; hence, all things shall be in everything. He explains that all things have a portion of everything and cannot be apart as it is impossible to have the least thing. Anaxagoras, Leucippus, and Democritus were mainly engaged in discussions of a highly abstract nature where what counted was not the empirical data that might be analyzed in support of the theory, the consistency and economy of the arguments on which the theory was based.
The pre-Socratic theories assertions are too vague, imprecise, unmathematical; thus, not testable by reference to empirical data. They were insufficiently empirical and too speculative in their practice to explain heavenly phenomena. Therefore, Pre-Socratics were guilty of open speculation unsupported by the sufficient empirical data basis that might disapprove or prove their theories. This may be termed as “the Unfounded Speculation view, and regard it as the standard response to Pre-Socratic science and in particular astronomy.”
Archimedes
By 3rd century BCE – Archimedes and beginning to see hints of self-praise and attacks. Archimedes was a mathematical genius who just wanted to keep learning and understanding. He first looked up to another mathematician Conon but after discovering several of his proofs and calculations were wrong he lost trust and began criticizing him. Once he transcended Conon he began to send his mathematical discoveries to other scholars around him, only to notice that some of these scholars would reply saying that they had discovered these things far before he did.
He would then begin to send some proofs that were deliberately wrong from time and time to test if these other mathematicians were being honest about whether they understood his computations and whether they did truly make all these discoveries far before him. Start to review other mathematician’s works to see if they were right or wrong. Begins to attack previous mathematical works by others by proving why the answer cannot be.
Drawing on the Egyptian and Babylonian science advances, Thales was capable of using the Exeligmos eclipse cycle to expect an eclipse. He “understood how the sun illuminates the moon; how the moon is in precise conjunction with the sun, it occults the sun.” By the early 5thcentury, Thales’ principles were firmly developed and astronomy would continue to progress toward the 4th-century mathematical theories.
Besides, Thales launched geometry to Greece from Egypt and established main advances in the study that organized the way for heavenly motions mathematical description. Many scholars have presumed that “either Pythagoras himself or some early members of his society or “school” developed a mathematical approach to the world and mathematical astronomy that correctly accounted for the moon’s light and eclipses in the sixth century BC.
However, Hellenophilia experienced a type of madness that inhibits him or her from historical truth and forms in the imagination the concept that one of many false suggestions is true. “Each of these propositions “distorts the history of science in two ways: passively, it limits the phenomena that the historian is willing or able to examine; actively, it perverts understanding of both Western sciences, from the Greeks till now, and of non-Western sciences.” In the diachronical view, one envisages oneself to being the observer in the past and not of the past. This approach virtue is to try to purge one of existing prejudices.
Ptolemy
Ptolemy’s primary geography is that world cartography is the imitation through the drawing of the entire know part of the world together with the things that are connected with the essence of world cartography is showing the known world as a continuous and single entity. On the contrary regional cartography demands landscape drawing which world cartography does not need at all because it enables one to indicate the general configurations and positions purely through labels and lines. Further, regional cartography does not require a mathematical approach whereas in world cartography the element assumes absolute precedence. Therefore, the first aspect that one has to examine is the shape, size, and position of the earth concerning its environment (heavens).
Besides, for sea journeys, one should account for the variation in speed matching with the blowing of the winds because at least over long periods these do not sustain a constant force. Applying shadow-casting tools, they observed the points of Zenith at the interval of the two ends and attained directly the meridian cut-off arc (the zenith points) that were geometrically similar to the journey arc. The entire section is disapproving of Marinos that highlights Ptolemy’s knowledge on geography and supported his argument or believability “Revision of Marino’s latitudinal dimension of the known world based on the astronomical phenomena.”
Further, it is claimed that “In what follows he does adduce some observed phenomena, but not such as can prove his thesis in the least.” A Greek horoscope is similar to the Babylonian horoscope in the data of astronomy as they both provide the planets’ positions expressed in terms of the zodiac’s signs they occupied at the birth time. “For Ptolemy as an astrologer, you will remember (chapter 1), it was not the stars themselves or even the stars in particular positions that were of paramount importance, but the ‘‘aspects’’ of the stars to each other and the earth.”
He asserts that the construction of the models and formulas that facilitated astrologers and astronomers to affect the forecasts depicts the first solid accomplishment of science as people may define it in this modern-day. Besides, data were not collected ad hoc during birth; instead, they were computed for adult clients, especially some 20 or 30 years afterward.
Before the Babylonian horoscopes’ discovery, it used to be considered that the individualism inherent in genethlialogy was bizarrely Greek. Currently, we could instead assert that the Greek’s competitive individualism spirit compelled the genethlialogy’s principles development as the rules of the game open to all, where we are all dedicated by being born.
However, what would be identified as scientific knowledge of the celestial phenomena and their behavior was restricted to a small class of mathematicians, astronomers, educated elite, and philosophers and only to the minority in the two categories.
Galen
Attacking most of the doctors- since they were eager for the ability resemblance instead of the truth have come to predominate in medicine and other arts neglecting the finest aspects of the arts and attention is lavished after what can bring them a high reputation with the citizens. A qualified doctor when he predicted the occurrence in a patient of rigor, delirium, hemorrhages, depression, obsessions, sweating, a fainting fit, or vomiting, he seems a bizarre monstrosity to the laity due to his rarity.
Therefore, to cover up their sketch education or as some understand nothing; the physicians assert that nothing like that was written in the past and that the person who advanced such a forecast is a sorcerer. It amounts to asserting that the doctors are unqualified. Hence, anyone with the desire to pursue medicine art in the philosophical way worthy of the Asclepius sons’ should suffer one of the two factors: either he may go into exile as Quintus and leave his perception rewards untarnished or leave himself wide open to slander, he may if he has no spirit step forward with a justification and cower back, live like the hare with fear in continuous anticipation of disaster and this increases their sorcery suspicions.
Talking about the rich by saying “they will pass their lives in peace.” All these are caused in the world lie within the materialism of the influential and rich in the towns who honor pleasure above the social virtues. They consider it useless for those people with finer knowledge and may impart it to other people. They are in their hands; they admire them, enrich them, and exalt them that they place statutes of jockeys and dancers alongside the gods’ images.
The story of Eudemus’s illness begin “whole illness of Eudemus the Peripatetic philosopher.” He decided to remain silent. Noting how he differs from other doctors opting to stay at home, bathed, and took his meal even though many people declared he was free from fever. He starts Galen’s self-praise “But when he began to show clear signs of a fever, he was convinced that this was a quartan cycle, and from then on he praised me alone for having previously taken his pulse accurately when he had believed that I had a respectable standing only in philosophical investigation and dabbled in medicine as a sideline.”
A reputable doctor claims one thing but Galen asserted another thing. He says “You remember how I replied to him without prevarication that the drug would not only give him no benefit whatsoever but on the contrary, would double the effect of the quartan fever.” However, after the most reputable doctors have failed in their treatment, he goes ahead to look for Galen.
He claims that Galen was not a doctor even though searched for omens. “He concluded for himself that they were rejoicing at the failure of my prediction and treatment.” Therefore, he no longer trusts other doctors as he asserts that to follow his argument far better than all other miserable doctors. The other doctors were jealous and tried to discredit Galen even though he had to continuously prove his learning and education.
Greek Culture
The Greek culture supports discussions, debate, and thought; it was necessary for philosophers to argue their points and give evidence to disprove other’s points. Current studies of ancient astrology and astronomy appear to accentuate the dichotomy between antiquity’s astronomy as a revolution science and its astrology as the superstition with historical value furnished the motive for examining celestial regularities. It is a reality that astrology could not have performed so independently by arithmetic astronomy.
Besides, the modern method assumes little account of the prevalent ancient paradigm, well exemplified in the astrological treatises and Ptolemy’s astronomical. The modern dichotomizing method is also differentiating astronomical gold from technical astrology. Modern philosophers also argue their points and offer evidence to disapprove other’s points.
In conclusion, it should be noted that Archimedes in his explanations did not always explain his math but proved that several other mathematicians work was wrong. Ptolemy, on the other hand, was concerned with the definition of astrology in the Tetrabiblos where he defined astronomy in the Amalgest. Galen, for example, and his advice as a Hippocratic doctor, was continuously reinforced by events of his successful intervention or the other doctors’ failure.
Bibliography
Associate Professor of Philosophy Daniel W Graham. Science Before Socrates: Parmenides, Anaxagoras, and the New Astronomy. 2013.
Beck. Introduction: What was Astrology in Ancient Greece and Rome?
Beck. The Product: How to Construct a Simple Horoscope, Ancient Style?
Benn, Alfred W. The Greek Philosophers (Vol.1&2). e-artnow, 2020.
Bosak-Schroeder, Clara. Other Natures: Environmental Encounters with Ancient Greek Ethnography. 2020.
Dutsch, Dorota, and Ann Suter. Ancient Obscenities: Their Nature and Use in the Ancient Greek and Roman Worlds. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015.
Galenic Medicine. PDF file.
Galen on the Natural Faculties. PDF file.
Galen Prognsis Excerpts. PDF file.
Graham, Daniel. Science Before Socrates: Parmenides, Anaxagora and the New Astronomy. USA: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Heath, Thomas Little, ed. The Work of Archimedes. Cambridge: University Press, 1897.
Heath, Thomas Little, ed. The Method of Archimedes. Cambridge: University Press, 1912.
Harris, William V. Popular Medicine in Graeco-Roman Antiquity: Explorations. Leiden: BRILL, 2016.
Holowchak, Mark. Ancient Science and Dreams: Oneirology in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Lanham: University Press of America, 2002.
Maire, Brigitte. ‘Greek’ and ‘Roman’ in Latin Medical Texts: Studies in Cultural Change and Exchange in Ancient Medicine. Leiden: BRILL, 2014.
Marmodoro, Anna. Everything in Everything: Anaxagoras’s Metaphysics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Ptolemy, Klaudios Ptolemaais, J. L. Berggren, Alexander Jones, and 2nd cent Ptolemy. Ptolemy’s Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Scheidel, Walter, Ian Morris, and Richard P. Saller. The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Solmsen, Friedrich, and Kathleen Freeman. “Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers.” The Philosophical Review 59, no. 2 (1950), 255. doi:10.2307/2181514.
Taub, Liba. Science Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Week 8.1 Notes.
Week 10 Notes.
Week 11.1 Notes.
Week 11.2 Notes.