WARNING: Thinking can seriously damage your ignorance.

Philosophy comes from the ancient Greeks, everyone knows that. Not just the word but the concept and method. But what is philosophy?

The first thing to say is that philosophy is not a body of opinion or point of view, it is not someone's personal way of seeing the world, it is not an attitude to life.

If you find this a little confusing, it is because, in common parlance today, the word philosophy is misused, to mean a belief or just a motto, as in 'my philosophy of life is…' whereas for the Greeks philosophy referred to the process of searching for truth, not to any subsequent conclusion. Some modern so-called philosophers also are responsible for misleading the rest of us as to what philosophy is.

So forgive yourself, if you had been misled.

Strictly speaking, philosophy as a noun is uncountable, it has no plural. It is a method, like science (another misused word) is a method, not a body of knowledge. It is a way of doing something to arrive at a trustworthy outcome, that something being thinking, and that outcome being truth, or as the Greeks saw it, ultimate, absolute truth. In science, the method often means putting forward a theory then conducting observations and experiments to validate or discard that theory. In philosophy, method means first and foremost asking a question, more specifically trying to define the question, then using logic and reason to discard all extraneous considerations, such as social or linguistic conventions, cultural or personal habits of thought, 'political correctness' etc., stripping down absolutely everything, until the truth stands completely naked and uncompromised, no matter how beautiful or ugly it may seem. As the Greeks also discovered, the greatest obstacle to truth is the fear of what the practical implications of truth might be, but that the benefits of absolute truth in the long run far outweigh any short-term discomfort.

In other words, it may take a long time for us to see the benefits or the superiority of the truth, but that is our problem. It took thousands of years for some of the other Greek discoveries to find a practical application, so a practical benefit must not be insisted upon forthwith.

PHILOSOPHY AND THE BRAIN

Philosophy regularly comes up in popular quizzes as one of the many Greek inventions, second only to democracy. But this is misleading. Other cultures and peoples have made important discoveries, inventions and observations, but the Greeks did not invent this and that.

With the invention of philosophy, what the Greeks did was to write the owner's manual for the human brain.

And from that, everything else followed.

Up until that time, and regrettably still today, many believed that the human brain would work something out when needs be. A bit like all your other organs working quietly in the background depending on what you happen to be doing or seeing or hearing, or what you ate or felt. If you start running, for example, you do not tell your heart to pump a bit faster now, you do not control your blood pressure, everything adjusts automatically and, if you drink alcohol, your liver will start to process it without you telling it what to do. To their cost, some still believe that their brain is like that also, that you do not need to tell your brain what to do, your brain will work things out when it comes across things. That was the fundamental belief that had kept humanity in darkness for millennia before the Greeks, and still keeps millions in ignorance today.

It was the Greeks who discovered that your brain is very different from your other organs - that you need to tell your brain what to do before your brain can tell you what to do. This may have been the greatest discovery in the history of man: Yes, you have to tell your brain HOW to think before your brain can tell you WHAT to think. And the Greeks called this philosophy - the training and the discipline of the thinking process.

Such training can be formal, as in modern-day universities, for example, but it is important to remember that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle did not have degrees or other 'qualifications' in philosophy or anything else. Instead, they had two things, a brain genetically inclined to ask purely abstract and theoretical questions, and an innate ability to use logic and reason correctly - because logic and reason can be dangerous when misused. So training or study can be informal, as in self-discipline - mental discipline.

A related but less known, subsidiary Greek concept, Syzitisis, often is translated as discussion, debate or argument in English, but is very different. Debate is adversarial, it is taking a position and then arguing to defend it against the opposite view, as I was told I must do when studying English literature at London University, and it is the default method for politicians with the utmost conviction, right or wrong. Whereas Syzitisis means both you and I working together, in parallel, with a common goal, 'to find', to find truth. Not discussion in order to reach agreement or compromise, nor to exchange or mutually explore each other's views, because we could both be wrong, but to search, together, for ultimate truth, independent of all our opinions, provable truth as in mathematics, through the use of reason and logic.

One might add, something explored separately under 'Philosophy and Democracy', that Greek philosophers would laugh at the idea of putting truth to a vote, as in modern day debate. The Greeks, being genetically inclined towards reason and logic, understood that winning, for example, an argument, does not make you right, and losing does not necessarily mean you were wrong. Our joint search, Syzitisis, would continue until the truth revealed itself to all, so that it could no longer be disputed by anyone, and would not need certification by a vote or some authoritative verdict, it would have become self-evident. Any scientific measurement or experiment would have been part of the original Syzitisis earlier, rather than a form of subsequent verification.

It is in the nature of philosophy also, and therefore axiomatic, that the philosopher will accept, if he realises he was genuinely wrong, he will not continue to argue as in adversarial debate. Nor is he interested in points of view. And the same applies to his audience, that they would not dismiss sound reasoning or bully the messenger once proven, hence philosophy could only have been invented in Greece where the general populace inclined towards reason and logic in disputation. In an Anglo-Saxon world, the ordinary masses might have demanded of any philosophical reasoning that you 'come to the point', so they could tell you whether they agree or not. And if you admitted an error or changed your mind, you would be discredited, whereas for the ancient Greeks that would be to your credit.

It was as a result of this concept of absolute truth that the ancient Greeks also produced several great mathematicians. Two and a half thousand years later, Albert Einstein used reason and logic as a scientific method, calling it thought experiments, showing the relationship between science, maths and philosophy, in the pursuit of ultimate truth. In fact, he often spoke of the 'philosophy of science.' Einstein was not able, at his time, to conduct the measurements and experiments we have done today to prove all this theories, so he arrived at truth philosophically, just like the ancient Greeks, hence his generous tribute to them. And his theories have been proved right.

THEORY AND PRACTICE

Einstein's thought experiments are a good example of how theory can trump hands-on experience where there seems to be a conflict, coming full circle back to the Greeks' preference for the former. He said you need both. Cosmologists and particle physicists today discover and tell us things about our world, which are completely counter-intuitive and seem weird to our experience, even seemed weird to Einstein, but have been proved both mathematically and by experiment. It was the Greeks' discovery of how different our brain is to our other organs that gave us the freedom to discover these wonderful facts. Greek philosophers were the first to show us that what seems obvious is not necessarily the truth.

Under The Ancient Greeks we discuss how the Greek brain was better equipped, genetically, to be happy with the purely abstract and theoretical, without regard to beneficial applications or implications - hence some Greek concepts and realisations found no practical use until thousands of years later. The Greeks had a certain kind of mind by nature - not just intelligent but also what Herbert Read called "intellectual," seeking out the abstract and theoretical rather than avoiding or using such thinking as a mere means to a practical end. Once again, to repeat, it would be an interesting comparison to make with the modern Anglo-Saxon brain, for example, which is genetically inclined towards the practical and pragmatic, insisting on demonstrable benefits from the outset, and with an instinctive dislike for logic and abstract theory, or for anyone, including philosophers, 'telling them what to think.' If the Greeks had been like that and had insisted on immediate or obvious practical benefits, most of their civilisation would have been lost to the world. It is added proof that a philosophical way of thinking must be hard-wired in some brains, just like musical, visual or spatial ability, even though all human brains share certain abilities to a greater or lesser degree, within a wide spectrum.

The Greeks understood one fundamental truth. There is no fundamental difference between practical and theoretical questions, no difference between the abstract and the applied. There was only truth or the absence of. Indeed some modern discoveries do not lead to inventions until many years later.

QUESTIONS, ANSWERS AND... SOLUTIONS?

Today philosophy is taught around the world, not as the umbrella source of other subjects, but as one of many disciplines. This is a practical way of studying a body of thought produced over centuries by philosophers of varying degrees of merit and from various backgrounds and nationalities, as long as the student understands that philosophy is more of a way of thinking than a body of thought, it is not a set of answers, but the discipline of defining what the question is.

Susan Greenfield - Professor at Oxford and a neuroscientist, among other things, while commenting on the internet, said: "The World Wide Web (invented by a British Scientist in 1991) has made even the poorest people information rich. But in a specific way: We are answer-rich, but maybe question-poor. Today's children may learn to value quick easy answers, as opposed to understanding the bigger framework."

The philosopher's role is more that of asking questions, or defining the questions, rather than selling his own ideas. If he puts forward answers, they should be self-evident to all through reason, not by force of argument, and should be accepted as such, if proven by logic.

Philosophy the method sets your thinking straight, no matter what the question. So, philosophy is the opposite or religious conviction. It is the opposite of political conviction. It is the opposite of rhetoric, as in telling people what they want to hear. It is the opposite of following your gut instinct. It is the opposite of treating others any way you like, according to how you feel about things. It is the opposite of avoiding the hard questions, or any questions, living every day for brainless fun or in passive resignation to unhappiness. Philosophy is the opposite of embracing a range of disparate points of view without challenging false logic, errors in thinking, or contradictions. It is the opposite of making others feel good by telling lies, when you should be warning them of possible harm or self-delusion instead.

It is, rather, insisting on truth.

Is there a place for philosophy in the lives of ordinary people in their daily struggles?

As pure thinking, philosophy can be used to address problems of a certain kind, so yes, it can have direct practical applications. We are confronted by regular dilemmas, where a disciplined way of thinking can make every difference, even the difference between life and death. Each time we need to solve a problem, we have to choose the right method or tool, and philosophy, as in abstract thinking, is one of several disciplines in that respect. You use a hammer on nails, and a saw to cut wood. So, also you use maths to plan your money, and chemistry to unblock a drain. If you try to use philosophy to measure the height of Mount Everest, you will fail. The same applies if you want to know the functions of the liver, or what water consists of, although, to repeat, maths, physics, chemistry and medicine originally evolved out of a philosophical way of thinking - the search for ultimate truth.

However, philosophy is best at dealing with far greater questions. Naturally, if you have lung cancer, that would be your biggest 'question' at present, and you would rather turn to medical science for a cure, whereas philosophy asks what you should be doing with your life, if you are not dead yet, and what you should be doing with your human brain, if you are lucky to have one - the underlying implication being that just being alive is not really for human beings with such an amazing organ. Should you live your life like your pet cat or dog, never wondering about the mysteries of our world, not thinking how you came to be, or if there is life after death? Because animals seem perfectly happy without asking such things. And ultimately, if you insist on such a blinkered existence, if you never ask philosophical questions, your way of thinking may determine how you treat your body and how long you live. You may smoke another cigarette or drown your sorrows in alcohol and die believing your lung cancer was just bad luck. You may even beg science (a product of philosophy) to help you, having turned your back to it before - too late now.

And of course, this is a philosophical question in itself - because we do not set out to give answers here: If it is possible to live in blissful, unthinking ignorance to a healthy old age, why not be happy with that, like your pet dog?

… AND FREEDOM

And so, from that one discovery regarding the human brain, all other achievements, whether of the Greeks or humanity in general, have sprung to this day. They set us free by showing that the human brain is not like a computer disk born empty and waiting to be filled with information, nor like a computer processor able to work something out depending on information input from the outside, but it is far more complex, that each brain is unique, that it has various abilities hardwired, each of which must then be disciplined by the owner; that it must be told what to do, before it tells its owner what to do - cf. The Brain and Consciousness.

A secondary implication of the same discovery was that truth can be established, given enough data, time, effort and brain power. Hence truth does not lie in dictums from those in authority, nor is it subject to short-sighted judges full of personal prejudices, but can be put to the test with reason and logic. Out of that arose science, a form of philosophy in that it is a methodical, rigorous and highly disciplined search for truth, to find natural, rather than supernatural answers to the world's mysteries. So the Greeks invented a unique way of thinking which was the most likely to get human beings as close as possible to absolute truth, on any subject.

The Greeks would not have embraced multiple points of view as we see it today, they sought after truth regardless of how difficult it was to find. With philosophy, freedom also came to mean something else for the Greeks, no longer just the absence of slavery or imprisonment, but freedom from false beliefs and from ignorance, including baseless points of view.

Plato saw man's quest for the ultimate truth as a journey through a tunnel in which men are prisoners. They can only see the shadows of things, not the reality. Except when suddenly, an ordinary man shakes off the chains and sees the light, i.e. fundamental truth. Other kinds of truth, scientific for example, revolved around this fundamental essence, just like 'universal beauty' or 'artistic integrity' meant truth. But every kind of question, including scientific puzzles, could be cracked, if one could see the essence of the world one lived in. (cf. A letter to Professor Al Khalili)

This was another manifestation of the Greeks' genetic heritage, this powerful urge to reject given wisdom or points of view, but pursue reason, reject authority in favour of intellectual freedom, freedom to challenge, confront and to discredit everything that did not stand up to logic, as opposed to today's liberal tolerance of every imaginable arbitrary, unsupported, random belief propagated without logical support. The people who invented freedom, including the democratic freedom to say whatever you wanted, also insisted that you then justify your full reasoning (not just your 'reason') for believing so. You could say whatever you wanted, but you could not say whatever you wanted. By testing old ideas previously unchallenged, the Greeks discovered that most of mankind's beliefs had been full of errors and falsehoods, which could not be ignored simply as points of view. They had to be exposed as lies and put right. And if you persisted after being shown to be wrong, whatever you said afterwards had no meaningful status.

WHAT CAME NEXT

In parts of the world today the idea of freedom has been taken to mean, for example, freedom to belong to a religious cult with no logical basis, or the freedom to hate someone for the colour of their skin, considerably restricting THEIR freedom. To the Greek way of thinking, if you could prove, for example, that one race was superior to another in some respect (a big 'if'), there was an obligation to accept that, without implying your right to hate them or treat them badly. It was a question of absolute truth, as well as moral virtue. Under The Ancient Greeks we give the example of the Council of Delphi admitting the superiority of their fellow Greeks in Athens over themselves. Any restriction on any truth was seen as base, and lack of reasoning as contemptible. This disregard for 'political correctness' in favour of absolute truth was genetically innate in Greek brains. As late as the first century AD, when Paul went to Athens to preach Christianity, something totally foreign and new to the Greeks, and they said so, they listened to his speech at the supreme council at Areopagus, in total freedom, and then said, "We'll talk about that later." Compare this with the medieval Holy Inquisition or even countries in our 21st century where people are accused of blasphemy and murdered or executed. An indication of just how different the Greeks were to such barbarism, they immediately regretted their own guilty verdict on the most irritating interrogator, Socrates, a fellow Greek, as a classic miscarriage of justice, even though freely imposed by a jury under the law, and they gave him the option to escape, rather than face the death penalty, an option he refused (as did Joan of Arc, another genius, centuries later, who chose to be burned rather than recant.) Subsequently, his pupil Plato and other philosophers were allowed complete freedom, the state putting the free individual above itself, a lesson our modern world has yet to learn.

Today, most modern Greeks still prize the cerebral above the pragmatic by a long way. And the attitude to formal education is different - it is prized equally amongst the lowest classes. University students are treated with great respect, equally by the poorest underclass and by less educated millionaires. The Nazi occupation of Greece left many unschooled, and that is a matter of much daily pain in that generation still today. In addition to education, modern Greeks value the concept of Kalliergimenos, roughly translated as cultured, which implies that education is not enough - you could be a medical consultant or a learned lawyer but still be uncultured or even ignorant and uncivilised, and many are. Kalliergimenos implies that you need to change your inner person, from a rough-hewn block of stone into a sculpture worthy of civilisation, mainly through education, but also through a general interest in both science and the arts, a first hand experience of the world around you, e.g. through travel and information, plus intelligent interaction with others who may be different from you.

It is interesting that the concept of absolute truth as proven by logic and reason was not contradicted by subsequent Christianity which, in its original form, as in Paul's letter to the Hebrews, for example, demanded the end of blind irrational faith, in favour of rational explanations, what Paul called "The evident demonstration of realities not beheld." Unlike other religions, this one, its scriptures written in Greek, demanded that its followers ask rational questions of itself, not blind faith. Said letter to the Hebrews sets out a legal framework for Christianity, something unprecedented in religion. Both the Greeks and early Christianity would never allow you to justify any belief or behaviour on the basis of 'That's my religion,' it would have to make logical sense. Whether that signifies any crossover of ideas is a matter for separate study, but it is interesting that logic and reason were not rejected by Christianity in favour of dogmatic revelation, provided your reasoning was sound. You had to have both. Similarly, Christianity, as preached both by Jesus and Paul, openly declared the end of blind obedience to some religious code (The Talmud or the Old Testament), as in rituals and formalities like sacrifices, circumcision etc., in favour of individual freedom, as the Greeks had done, the first Christian governing body declaring the end of Judaic commandments in favour of your individual conscience before God, with the exception of one simple commandment, "to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, and from sexual immorality." (Acts 15:29) It goes without saying that modern so-called Christianity has strayed far from the original.

By way of a footnote, there are a number of indications in classical Greek literature that the intelligentsia of the time did not really believe in the twelve gods of Olympus as real, even when they made references to such. For example, several writers hinted that men blamed their own errors and misdeeds on acts of the gods. Xenophanes (c.570 BC) said that men have created the gods in their own image. Protagoras was asked if he believed in the twelve gods of Olympus, and he replied, "The question is complex and life is short." Socrates' own beliefs were nonconformist, he often referred to God rather than the gods, and he claimed to be guided by an inner divine voice, what Christianity later called conscience.

And yet, despite rejecting given wisdom in favour of freedom, the Greeks as a whole did not set out to be rebels or revolutionaries for the sake of it. They valued the polis, the state, the common good. They did not set out to destroy convention, but to add, invent and create. Their freedom sprung from reason and logic, not bloody-mindedness.

© John K Smyrniotis
London 2019

LINKS:

A letter from John K. Smyrniotis to Professor Jim Al-Khalili, Dept. of Nuclear Physics, University of Surrey, on the paradox of the quantum world.


cf. A personal note from the editor.