No new philosophy (under the sun) ? Who believes this & why?
- Anonymous10 months agoFavourite answer
Plato believed it. Almost every beginning western philosophy student knows this (ref: Meno). Buddhist and Brahman philosophers also believe it. Why? Because it has to be true if one believes that existence is infinite.
- 10 months ago
Looks like two answers here agree that Plato believed in "no new philosophy (under the sun)" edict.
And if every western philosophy student knows this then I cannot see why it can't be called an edict.
Answering one reason why its true (for) " it has to be true IF one believes existence to be infinite" then I can reply that in our time EXISTENCE IS NOT THOUGHT INFINITE....
Currently many leaders & Politicians are grappling with the problem of
Fossil Fuels use & their deadly CO2 emissions. Scientists too all around
the world are also now engaged into finding ways to Halt this manmade
emission since the start of mass worldwide Industry, many years ago.
And this is because of the known approaching "tipping point" of the CO2
concentration; an amount of invisible deadly gas which MAY NOT BE
which could mean the end of human existence along with the Extinction
of other life on Earth.
With this firmly in our minds then life CANNOT BE BELIEVED to be INFINITE.
And it has to be FINITE, in our minds, scientists & Philosophers minds too.
This can be reasonably compared by also referring comparing to another of
the answer's here who says there are MANY ATTEMPTS to differentiate
(or change) from a given philosophy tradition..
One such tradition is the tradition which is the valuable Ancient Greek
Philosophy tradition. But here in the 21st Century we are not just concerned
with such a tradition but with a general tradition of why no new Philosophy
or no new philosophies could occur. And all through the modern Industrial
Revolution a general TRADITION has occurred...
the tradition of using & burning fossil fuels WITHOUT WORRY TO THEIR
EFFECT, & the effect of releasing the heat-trapping CO2 gas & what that
does - what is the affect over time.
The effect is now known too - the CO2 STAYS IN THE ATMOSPHERE, it
BUILDS UP in the atmosphere trapping the heat from human activity as well
as other sources This is the modern tradition of our history NOW - it includes
PHILOSOPHY as well as SCIENCE now ; and it can be looked-back-on &
seen as the FINITE TRADITION..
due to the importance of the History of our traditions coupled with the
continuance of the modern Industrial tradition up to this time.
This has to be accepted as the Prime tradition of concern now that the
known danger above is here. There are other reasons too now that we
know better the Philosophies of the past & particularly of the Ancient Greeks.
Particularly today we can see more clearly the dangers in societies from &
towards the teaching of Philosophy. I mean the Open & Free teaching of this
discipline or subject, its reasonable teaching therefore TO AS WIDE AN
AUDIENCE AS POSSIBLE. And we must suspect certainly that this hasn't
always so - that Philosophy has for some time been a rather CLOSED &
select subject whether taught in colleges & schools or whether just picked
up through general hearsay or from those lucky enough to have studied it.
Its no secret that others including myself have sought to bring this "to light",
to seek to understand better what philosophy has for and what the study
of it was meant to show.
And no better Philosophy that that the one here referred to as from Plato,
the Ancient Greek & one of the very first to have philosophy recorded.
And as one of the first recorded philosopher's Plato should be in line to
be studied in great detail. But that was never the case for even when I
studied him & his philosophy academically it was never SPELLED OUT
to what extent he & his philosophy really was.
It was a closed-type-philosophy in that it was MUCH MORE SELECT
than even what philosophy is described above ; for his philosophy was
NOT taught to foreigners, no one who was not Greek.. AND his
philosophy as far as I know WAS NOT TAUGHT TO Females.
And so we should say nowadays that Plato's taught Philosophy was
both racist & sexist.
It WAS A CLOSED SELECT Racist & Sexist philosophy, & must have
"suffered" accordingly (because of its lack of CRITICISM applied by its
Own students learning it the schools or colleges then).
And I have explained this in much detail in my User past. Others I
believe have too.
What is important to see just WHY THEN such a question..
No New Philosophy (under the sun)? can now be pertinently asked.
that is what can be gained from such a thing?
What can be gained is what new knowledge can be gained now in our time,
what exactly "went on" then all those years ago in ancient Greece to blind
those very teachers that are still be lauded & praised-to-the-heavens even
nowadays. Are they responsible in some small way for the fact that due to
inherent racism & sexism & elitism RACISM & SEXISM Still has a big impact
in this day?
And if as likely those ancient Greek teachers like Plato WERE NOT aware
of the fact of racism & sexism.... why weren't SUBSEQUENT Teachers
the ones before now that is?
Were they too so Blinded by their own select philosophy teaching & by their
own philosophy teachers?
These & many other direct philosophy questions may be now just be a
matter of a select disappointment of promising students misery in having
to learn insignificant facts about Philosophy HISTORY now...
but that SHOULD Through significantly MORE emphasis then on WHAT
EXACTLY PHILOSOPHY IS FOR NOW...
& why bother to TEACH IT AT ALL ?
The clue I think should be in OUR ENVIRONMENT now, its urgent need
of social learning & historical convergence of teaching facts during the recent
Industrial Age AND before during the long era of virtually zero
education throughout the general populations of that time - Leading Directly
to a neat TOTAL LACK OF CRITICISM of Philosophy ; & of it's other
associated science, psychology & of course philosophy's neighbouring
areas which have had similar historical & environmental effects
comparable to it.
- j153eLv 710 months ago
"New" is the newer version of ME neue, which in turn was the newer version of OE neowe, "made for the first time; novel; untried, unused."
Philosophy is reasoning developing hypotheses; general hypotheses tend to remain as philosophies; testable hypotheses (whether of or by God, of atoms, of jurisprudence, etc.) tend to become parts of religions, sciences, laws, etc.
There are no new elements "under the sun;" all molecular structures are built of the 92+ elements. So too there are discernable basic atomic structures in philosophy, perhaps such as the laws of thought, ideas of being, of knowing, of ethics, and there are a near-infinite number of contemplative hypotheses built of such foci. Some of the greater developments are built on the "shoulders of previous geniuses;" for example, in logic, these have recently developed logics well beyond the standard aristotelian logic: Frege, Godel, and Lukasiewicz.
It is not a question of a false dichotomy--an old vs new shtick--but of various (general) hypotheses' inter-comparing of ideas and concepts. It is therefore reasonable to note that various philosophies arise, and variously contribute to contemplative thinking, comparatively independent, in some respects, to time, and more correlated with types of ideation. And, a "new" philosophy may be hundreds of years already present, but novel to some of those encountering and working with and through it.
While profound work is evident throughout the history of philosophies, it is also well to note that many great thinkers have developed since Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, e.g. Whitehead, Husserl, and Wittgenstein.
There are outlying attempts to differentiate from a given tradition, for various (sometimes psychologistic) reasons. Notable recent examples are the work of Kuki Shuzo as moving from general Japanese aesthetics, through Husserl, Heidegger, and Bergson, to a novel reestablishment of Japanese Edo sensibility ("Reflections on Japanese Taste: The Structure of Iki"); and, in the west, Francois Laruelle's "Principles of Non-Philosophy."
As to the rhetorical aspect of your question, Nietzsche seems to have been in agreement with the "eternal recurrence" perspective put forward by this gentleman: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9). On the other hand, "Behold, I make all things new." (Revelation 21:5).