Answering Other Questions About Nonfiction and Philosophy - CLEP Humanities

The Poetics were the first comprehensive approach to defining the key elements and requirements of the dramatic form. Tellingly, its author, Aristotle, was a great philosopher, rather than a great playwright or poet. The work features Aristotle's deep, systematic thinking, applied specifically to what is widely considered the "poetic arts," including lyric poetry, epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, and the satyr play.

The great Aristotle was the student of an equally great philosopher, namely Plato. Indeed, Aristotle spent 20 years at Plato's Academy! He didn't do this merely because he was a slouch who didn't want to get a job. Instead, during this many years of learning, Aristotle imbibed much of Plato's thought. His later writings would in many ways temper and limit the excesses of his master. Nevertheless, when one reads Aristotle, one can sense the discussions of the Academy as being directly behind the scenes of Aristotle's own concerns.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) has probably had more influence on Western society than almost any other person in all of history. This is almost certain when we limit ourselves to authors of Latin texts. After many years as a successful rhetorician (living a dissipate lifestyle), Augustine converted to Christianity. He was soon the Bishop of Hippo and became a prolific writer. His thought would influence Western Christianity throughout all of the Middle Ages and would be an important touch point throughout numerous reformations and revolutions within Western Christendom down to the present day. Indeed, during the Middle Ages, for example, there were two great authorities—the Greek man, Aristotle, and Augustine.

In the Confessions, Augustine tells the tale of his conversion—giving a long history of his life as well as his beliefs. This text is amazing for its personal depth and is a unique testimony of someone's psyche during the period of late antiquity.

Interestingly, one of the great founders of philosophy did not actually write anything that we know of. Almost all that we know of him comes from the reports we have received from Plato as well as the play Clouds by Aristophanes. The bulk of the material, in any case, comes from Plato. In his dialogues, Plato portrays Socrates as discussing philosophical matters with various Athenians. Likely, Plato puts some of his own positions on the lips of Socrates. Nevertheless, if we want to puzzle out just what was the "philosophy of Socrates" our only real source can be found in Plato's dialogues.

The Pre-Socratics are so named merely because of their place in history. They came before Socrates. Socrates is like a "dividing line" for Greek philosophical history! In any case, the Pre-Socratics like Thales and Anaxagoras were interested in the basic elements from which all things were made and how those elements became what we know of in our experience. Other thinkers like Heraclitus and Parmenides were interested in more esoteric questions about being and non-being. In some ways, these thinkers were interested in "metaphysics"—especially Parmenides and Heraclitus. More broadly, the group was interested in cosmology or the way the world is to be understood philosophically. Hence, the best overall category for them is that of "natural philosophy", understanding that all of these terms were coined after the time of the pre-Socratics. With Socrates, philosophy took on a very human-centered and ethical set of concerns.

Origen was one of the early Christian "fathers" in Egypt in the third century AD. He was heavily influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophy, and some of his views ended with him being condemned. He wrote extensively on the Hebrew and Christian scriptures with great critical skills for his times. He remained an influential figure on the Egyptian monastic movement and, today, is held in esteem by contemporary Christians, even if he is not accorded the status of being a "Saint."

This question is referring to the famous paradox of Zeno, often called the "Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise." The idea is that if the turtle is in front of the runner, there will be an infinite number of points through which the runner will have to pass in order to reach the Tortoise. No matter how fast Achilles runs, this infinite number of points will take an infinite amount of time for him to pass through. Thus, he will never arrive at the Tortoise.

This problem seems strange (and perhaps just idiotic), but it comes down to a confusion that one must be careful not to make. Between two points in space, there are potentially an infinite number of points if we keep dividing that space (considered mathematically, at least). Actually, however, there are not an infinite amount. At least, this is how a follower of Aristotle would answer Zeno. This paradox was just one of many that Zeno used to defend Parmenides.

The theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote much in his brief forty-nine years of life. Many people are introduced to him through a brief passage in his Summa theologiae in which he proposes five possible "ways" for proving God's existence. In various manners, these five proofs are based on ways that someone can start with human experience and prove from that finite, changing experience how there must be an unchanging God.

Many of the other thinkers listed in this question as potential answers had interest in matters similar to this as well. Most directly pertinent for this matter is Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm is well known for his so-called "ontological argument" for God's existence (though the title is a bit of a later attribution). His general idea was that so long as you can have an idea of, "Something than which nothing greater can be thought," you can prove that such a great thing must indeed exist—precisely because it is so great that it is perfect and hence has the perfection of existence.

Interestingly, many of the works of Aristotle returned to the Latin West by means of Arabic translations. Often the Latin editions were Latin translations of Arabic translations of Syriac translations of the Greek. Eventually, better Greek editions came to the West, but the Islamic commentators on Aristotle remained very important.

The two greatest figures (though there were others) were Ibn Rushd (or Averroes) and Ibn Sina (or Avicenna). Many of the works of Aristotle were very difficult to read. Part of this was due to the difficulty of the texts but part of it was also due to the poor translations (which were often very literalistic). Ibn Rushd had written a number of commentaries on Aristotle's works. Latin translations of these commentaries were often consulted by medieval philosophers so as to help in the parsing of Aristotle's texts. (Indeed, in some editions of Aristotle's works, Ibn Rushd's commentaries were included in the margins.)

Ibn Sina was a unique and creative Persian philosopher who combined Aristotle's thought with many other forms of philosophical thought (especially those of Neo-Platonism). Ibn Rushd thought that Ibn Sina's thought was not faithful to Aristotle. Nevertheless, Ibn Sina's writings on natural philosophy and metaphysics (or "first philosophy") were very important for medieval thinkers who were learning anew the details of Aristotle's thought.

The Middle Ages was a variegated and differentiated period, filled with many thinkers of quite differing temperaments and ideas. The general theme that united the period, at least in its time of greatest development, was the advent of the universities and the eventual division of camps of thinkers into various "schools"—i.e. schools of thought such as Thomism, Nominalism, Scotism, Albertism, and so forth. For this reason, the period is often identified with the title "Scholasticism," though you should always remember that this one term really applies to many different perspectives and outlooks.

By the 13th and 14th century, the liberal arts curriculum had generally stabilized and arrived at what became its classical formulation. These topics were studied by all before going on to higher studies such as theology, law, or medicine. Also, during this same period, other topics were added to the arts, especially natural philosophy but also a study of other works of Aristotle such as the Metaphysics and the Nicomachean Ethics.

The liberal arts were split up into two main branches. The first consisted of three subjects pertaining to logical expression, while the second consisted of four subjects pertaining to mathematical matters. The first three were called the "trivium", literally meaning "the three subjects": grammar, logic, and rhetoric. The latter were called the "quadrivium", literally meaning "the four subjects": arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music (understood as a science of mathematical proportions).

The Sentences of Peter Lombard (1096-1160) was the single most influential textbook for many, many centuries. It was a compilation of sources, systematized for the study of theology. In the universities, it became the custom that the "dissertation"—it really was not that, strictly speaking—required the writing of a commentary on all four books of Lombard's Sentences. These works were often massive and involve a great deal of philosophical and theological speculation. Often these commentaries involved thousands upon thousands of pages. This was a requirement of university students for centuries—even Martin Luther wrote a commentary on this work, as did other students of his time!

In his The Course of Positive Philosophy, Auguste Comte famously divided the history of societies up into three main periods. These periods are said to be characterized by their manners of explaining the causes of human experience. The first is the theological phase. In this stage, causes are explained primarily in terms of gods or a god. Then, in the "metaphysical" stage, abstract notions are used to explain the causes of things. Finally, in the "positive" stage, only "positive" (or posited) facts and scientific observations are the primary mode of explanation. Comte thought the final type of society was the highest and most developed. By doing so, he set up his own time's philosophical conception of knowledge as the pinnacle of human thought.

In a way, all of these thinkers were influential, though in different ways. Francisco de Vitoria was a teacher in Spain whose work on natural rights is part of a broader discussion that would eventually filter through many Catholic and Protestant thinkers. These thinkers would become sources for the pivotally important Thomas Hobbes, whose best known political work is the _Leviathan—_a brutal but fully developed treatise on a quite domineering notion of the nation state. Likewise, Baron de Montesquieu was quite influential on many political thinkers during this period, as was Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The most important thinker concerning the Declaration of Independence is John Locke. It is from Locke's thought that Thomas Jefferson derived his remarks regarding the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In Locke's political philosophy, he actually presents life, liberty, and property as the three fundamental rights of human persons. Locke's position was a kind of softening of the much harsher position of Hobbes, who stated that when we are not in society, we only have one fundamental right—self defense! Note, of course, that Jefferson changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness." This followed the recommendations of his fellow drafters, who hoped thereby to avoid issues that could have arisen because of a very problematic form of property in the colonies—slaves.

In his political philosophy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau discusses (among other things) the idea of the "general will" of the people. This idea can seem very horrifying—almost like a tyrannical will of the majority over the rest of the people. He means something much simpler than that. He is merely referring to the idea that in a given group of people, the people as a whole have a will that is aimed at certain common goals. Indeed, in some ways, Rousseau's thought in this regard is a kind of strange version of what some Aristotelians and Medieval Scholastics meant in their discussions of how the common good is willed by a political body. Of course, there are great differences in how they conceived of the common good and how Rousseau discussed the "general will." What remains, however, is the fact that Rousseau is, in fact, well known for using this notion in his political philosophy.

Alfred North Whitehead famously said that all of Western philosophy was nothing more than a series of footnotes to Plato. This statement is a bit deceiving. There were many creative Western philosophers after Plato, bringing unique ideas into the history of philosophy. The general idea that he was trying to express was that Plato was the first lengthy writer, one who was very influential on another great philosopher who was his student, namely Aristotle. Every future philosopher in the West took up some position that was somewhat positive or negative regarding these figures.

Thus, even many centuries later, the early modern rejection of Medieval philosophy was actually also a rejection of Aristotle in many ways, for Aristotle was a key component of medieval learning. Interestingly, at this same time, there was a great uptick in studies of Plato among humanist scholars. Still, even in utter rejection of some previous thinker, one must have considered that thinker at some point and at some depth. This keeps some "root" in the past even while rejecting it. Thus, even thousands of years later, philosophers write "footnotes of footnotes of footnotes" concerning the thought of Plato—at least in a broad sense of speaking!