Plato and Aristotle vs. All other Ancient Greek Philosophers: Philosophy Forums

Plato and Aristotle vs. All other Ancient Greek Philosophers

imwright
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 12/12/08 - 08:39 PM: Subject: Plato and Aristotle vs. All other Ancient Greek Philosophers	#1
In the political and social context of the Hellenistic period (where a person could move between these extremes [or fortune] in very short order) Stoicism provided a psychological fortress, which was secure from bad fortune. Historians of philosophy [early in the twentieth] century regarded this as a mark against Hellenistic philosophy generally. The notion was that philosophy peaked with Plato and Aristotle and then degenerated into the popular "feel good" philosophy of the Hellenistic period and did not approach its earlier glory again until Plotinus. -Dirk Baltzly, â€œStoicism,â€ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy With this quote in mind, why do you think some professional philosophers think Plato and Aristotle are the high points of ancient philosophers and why others would think there is merit in the ancient Greek philosophers who came before and after them?

Wissenschaften
Resident Bright

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2009
Location: Northern California

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 13

Posted 01/12/09 - 12:24 AM:	#2
I don't think the post-Aristotelians can be considered outside of Plato and Aristotle, because many of their arguments were simply refinements of their forebears. Stoic philosophy, for instance, had much of the groundwork supplied to it from Aristotle. The same goes (perhaps obviously) for Neoplatonism and Plato. The biggest points in favor of Plato/Aristotle as the zenith of ancient philosophy concern the utter breadth of their work. They were far more prolific, original, and well-reasoned than earlier philosophers, or many that followed. Really, no philosophers in the West until Aquinas reached their level of sophistication regarding philosophical problems, and Aquinas "stole" most of his good material from Aristotle anyway. Only when we get to Descartes do we philosophy take a decidedly new course away from the basic arguments and problems of Plato and Aristotle. The pre-Socratics' works were full of logical errors and hazy mysticism that is largely absent from Plato and Aristotle (Plato was still a mystic of sorts, but he had much more solid reasoning for his brand of mysticism). That is why they are (rightly, I think) regarded so much more than their immediate predecessors or descendants.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.