And in line with trying to be as succinct as possible, this will hopefully be as helpful and informative equally in trying to make sense of HCJ/HWP. The notes themselves will be mixed from my reading of the first part of Russell's book and the lecture itself. PLEASE feel free to criticise if it's all going to the scrap heap already, and all comments will be welcome!
The arrival of philosophy as a concept itself can date back as far as 585BC. During this time, there were many figures that had a significant impact on the way today which we all think. Paramenides with is idea that nothing changes, Heraclitus with his obsession with fire and war etc. Indeed, pre-history philosophers themselves can quite easily be mistaken with modern "emo" and pessimist cultures. However, despite much confusion about the significance of these figures, Russell stated himself in his introduction:
"Is the world divided into mind and matter, and, if so, what is mind and what is matter?"
In other words, there are just no straightforward answers to anything and even Russell identifies with this idea itself that despite all the contradictory figures in this mind-blowing account of philosophy as a whole, only brief accounts can be described to the best of the best philosophers.
Moving on, here is what I've learned so far by definitions of this book, which I believe to be quite important for our "key terms" index:
- Disciplinarians: Dogmatic belief in religion and extreme hostility to science itself.
- Libertarians: Socially rationalistic figures who believe in develop in nations slowly and without tyranny.
- Tyranny: One man who rules alone without being elected by his people.
- Democracy: Perhaps practiced best through the Athenian people of Greece, may aspects of democracy itself did not involve either slaves or women to vote and have their say. Even Pythagoras (who by all means was quite pompous is his views) categorised three sets of people, and the lowest class were those who "buy and sell".* Though after the Greco-Roman period, Rights for women were installed as well as brilliant developments in trade-currency.
It is in my opinion as Roman beliefs parted ways with the Greeks, preferring a practical approach in their beliefs (aqueducts, villas etc.) and the Greek form of democracy in Athens breaking in 404BC after the Peloponnesian War, that the rise of Christianity in 300AD before then had wreaked havoc on the natural order of democracy. Until the 1300s after the Dark Ages, did the Renaissance challenge the almighty figurehead of Rome as Kings and Emperors could take back the authority to serve their people. Thank heavens for humanist portrayals and not just iconic imagery after these seemingly grim times...
Right, this is getting too long here for my liking. Therefore, I will continue to ponder on the debates between science and theology and leave you to your day (or if it's 2.00 in the morn. and decided you had nothing better to do , WHY are you even reading this?!)
Update tomorrow and in the wise words of Edward Young, as may be the case if I don't, "Procrastination is the thief of time"!
*Think about if democracy has changed in any way today. Does the class system still prevail? Is anybody better or worse off from democracy in Athenian times?
a very good start
ReplyDelete