I watched this casually for several videos and then realized I was going to need to devote a chunk of time to fully grasp the content. I just spent the last hour taking notes on your 20 minute intro lecture and I'm still not sure I got everything! So much condensed knowledge, well-organized and professionally presented. I am looking forward to diving in to more of your content. Thank you!
Thanks for this terrific video. I intend to watch all of your videos. I finally grasped what was going on in climate science by creating my own timeline of climate science thinkers beginning wth Josep Fourier in 1827. Timelines help me.
That's great! I learned about them as an undergraduate (many years ago) and have always found them helpful in getting my mind wrapped around the development of ideas.
this channel is soooo underrated !! I love taking notes. I would like to ask what should I do to start with camus and sartre? do I need to study kant first?
Thanks for your very kind comment! 20th Century Existentialism is a very interesting phenomenon in the history of Western Philosophy, although it didn't have much longevity as a movement. It's impact is probably more profound in shaping literature and film than successive philosophical insight. You'll need to go back further than Kant, since he is, in many respects, responding to David Hume's argument that Empiricism ultimately leads to Skepticism (at least in regard to scientific knowledge). It is my view, that the entire Western philosophical tradition (and this is probably true of other philosophical traditions as well) is a single conversation that has been going on since the late 7th Century BCE. And, as a single conversation it's very difficult to jump in at any point and hope to fully understand what's going on. You really need to start at the begining and work all the way through. BUT, that's a lot to ask if you're not a professional student of Philosophy! :-) So, let me suggest that you at least go back to Hume, and work forward from there. Good luck, and thanks for watching.
Thanks for the comment. They are really designed to merely be introductory and are therefore quite broad. But my hope is that they will get more folks interested in Philosophy as an academic discipline. As 'Sokrates' said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Also worth mentioning the impact of the Golden Age of Islam on Intellectual History as they're the only reason we still have a lot of the ancient greek texts after Christianity tried to burn the lot.
Hi Son of Djinn. Thanks for the comment! Yes, there's so much to tell in the story of the rise of the rational world view, and the role of the Islamic Empire, especially during the so called Golden Age, is of vital importance. Thanks for watching!
Perhaps the big elephant in the room is the omission of the influence of Egypt and ultimately the early African civilizations on the Greeks could help us better understand the origin of western philosophy
Hi Bongani! Thanks for commenting! These videos are SO short and such brief introductions, that, of necessity, lots of important stuff gets left out. Certainly during the Bronze Age, the Helladic and Minoan cultures were dominated by the influences of the Middle and early New Kingdoms. We cannot fully understand their story without the north African influence. The Hellenic cultures of the early Iron Age were somewhat less dominated by their southern neighbors, and more so by their eastern neighbors (as exhibited in the so-called "Orientalized" phase of Archaic Hellenic art). One of the interesting questions is, Why? And the answers to that question are far beyond what my videos are outlining. But you are right, a complete story requires an exploration of all of these.
It's true that in this episode you are covering the western intelectual history, but nevertheless disregarding the cultures in near east, persia, india and china is unjustified and vomes from the euro-centric and romantitcised western perscpective. Helenism never had any serious impacts in the near east becuse the vast terretories, from the Asia Minor to Persia, to cental asia and india was not a baren land but full of culture, tradition and established scocial orders, which had a stronger influence on Macedonians, and later on Romans. Similarly, the influence of near eastern culture into Europe in particular in science and medicine as well as philosophy in middle ages is undeniable.
Hi Mano! Thanks for the comment. It is indeed a shortcoming of the format! This video (as well as all these videos) is not intended to be in any way complete or comprehensive, but rather the most basic introduction to a timeline of Western Philosophy (not World Philosophy) for folks who otherwise have no historical context into which to place the very few philosophers introduced. Most of the students I work with have very little historical knowledge prior to the late 20th Century, and almost no knowledge whatsoever of events outside the US. In reality, I'm often starting from ground zero. So I beg your forgiveness and indulgence. Thanks for watching.
Hi MusicianCR! Thanks for watching. Actually, there is significant dispute over the relationship between the Greeks and the Macedonians. In a very real sense, it comes down to what we mean by being "Greek" (which is itself an interesting problem). The answer to this can be articulated in terms of language, culture, politics, or ethnicity (i.e., genetic identity). Depending on which element you're focusing on, you can get a different answer. From an historical perspective, the "city-state" Greeks didn't look at their northern neighbors as being Greek. Even Aristotle lists them as among the "barbarian" civilizations. Also, when Alexander wanted to compete in the Olympics, he had to "prove" his "Greek" lineage before he was admitted. Of course they admitted him, because by the 4th Century the poloi had been absorbed into the Macedonian hegemony, so they couldn't really exclude him if they had so wanted. Linguistically, the "indigenous" Macedonian language seems to be related to a dialect of Archaic Greek, so that could count in favor of them being the same people. But then again, the fact that most Greeks wouldn't understand the dialect cuts in the other direction as well. The very origin of the term "barbarian" is rooted in the inability of "the Greeks" to understand the language of the "other" people. The Macedonians were politically organized in a traditional monarchy which was rejected by the Greeks in favor of oligarchy, elected kingship, or democracy, so we find divergency there. The point is, it's an open question and there are arguments on both sides. I tend to come down on the side of them being more different than alike. Thanks again for watching!
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy The reason you find it hard to accept Macedonians as Greeks is because you have a very specific idea of what Greek is, which I believe to be heavily biased, perhaps because of your interest in philosophy. You mentioned in your video the Mycenaeans, and how we don't know whether they were Greek. This is simply false. We are very certain that the Mycenaeans were indeed Greek. This has been confirmed not only through linguistic research (with the Mycenaeans undisputably speaking an early form of Greek)[1], but also more recently with genetic research [2]. Linear B was deciphered as Greek decades ago. I'm not sure why you would present such a well established fact as an unknown mystery. The Myceneans provide a wider context of what Greek meant, and that probably does not sit well with your idea of Greek, one that is heavily idealized with intellectuals and philosophers and whatnot. We know that's a tiny fragment of Greek history, specifically limited to the classical attic period. If we set our eyes outside Athens and Athenian satellite poleis, we can easily observe the Mycenaean warrior-culture of the Macedonians among other Greeks like Molossians, Spartans/Dorians and even Aeolians. If your idea of "Greek" is limited to Athenians and Ionians, then you'll obviously have a hard time seeing the Greek connection with the Mycenaeans, and accepting the Macedonians as Greeks, but that's simply not the case. Other undisputed Greeks, like the Dorians, appear much closer culturally to the Macedonians than the Athenians, with this being confirmed linguistically, since the Pella curse tablet presents a Doric dialect of Greek that was apparently spoken by the Macedonians. What other Greeks thought of the Macedonians does not say much, especially when we're talking about Athenians -- the ones who were threatened the most by the rise of the Macedonians. You're so heavily relying on what other clearly politically biased Greeks thought, while at the same time you're brushing off strong evidence such as language or that Alexander competed in the Olympics, where only Greeks could participate. On the issue of language, we both agree that the Macedonians spoke what was essentially a language of the Hellenic branch, closely related to Greek. You claim other Greeks could not understand Macedonian Greek, and my question is what other Greeks? The Ancient Greek dialects were a spectrum, kind of like the languages of Italy. A Sicilian who only speaks Sicilian will be able to communicate with a Napoletano, and a Napoletano will be able to communicate with a Tuscan, but a Tuscan will have a hard time communicating with a Sicilian. The situation was similar in Ancient Greece, with speakers of different dialects able to understand other dialects at widely different degrees. We have many other cases of Greeks being unable to communicate with other Greeks. Further, Athenian claims as to whether they can understand Macedonian Greek or not may have been very politically biased: even nowadays you see Croats and Serbs pretending they can't understand each other despite literally speaking the same language, merely because of spite. How can you automatically assume this wasn't also the case in the heavily political environment of late classical Greece? > The Macedonians were politically organized in a traditional monarchy which was rejected by the Greeks in favor of oligarchy, elected kingship, or democracy, so we find divergency there. You mean it was rejected by your own personal definition of Greeks, which really only includes Athenians and Ionians. Many Greek tribes had monarchy, including the Molossians, the Argites, the Spartans and others the further you go back. Monarchy is literally the only form of government mentioned in the Iliad and Odyssey, the core of Greek literature that you yourself mentioned, yet you don't recognize that as Greek? Even if archaic? Monarchy is widepsread in most of Greek mythology, yet the fact that Macedonians had monarchy somehow shows they're not Greek? Further, the distinction between Monarchy and Tyrrany (a commong ancient Greek political system) is about how good the leader was perceived to be, as in all other ways they're essentially the same political system. So, the Macedonians spoke Greek (either a dialect or a closely related language, this is more of a classification issue than anything), practiced Greek religion, referred to themselves as Greeks, had culture and traditions similar to that of Doric Greeks, had a governening system that was widespread among Greeks, and even more so before the classical period. Remind me again, what is the argument for them not being Greek? That the politicalled motivated Athenians called them barbarians? [1] 1958. The decipherment of Linear B. Cambridge University Press, 1958, John Chadwick [2] Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans, Harvard Medical School, 2017, Iosif Lazaridis, Alissa Mittnik, Nick Patterson, Subhashis Mallick
Disappointed that the Islamic influence on Western Europe was not mentioned, especially the influence on the Renaissance. Al Khawarizmi Al Jazari Jabir Ibn Hayan Ibn Rushd Al Ghazali Ibn Al Haytham Al Razi And so forth.
You are very correct to point out that I've neglected the influence of al-Farabi, ibn Sina, and Ibn Rushd, especially in the development of late Medieval and Renaissance thought. In part it's because these videos are necessarily short and I have to make painful decisions about what to put in and what to leave out, and it's always a challenge. But more importantly, I'm not an expert in Medieval Islamic Philosophy, and I feel VERY uncomfortable including material that is outside my area of expertise. Thanks so much for watching and commenting!
Thanks for watching and commenting! Just some very brief introductory videos to help people get started in understanding the Western tradition of Philosophy.
I watched this casually for several videos and then realized I was going to need to devote a chunk of time to fully grasp the content. I just spent the last hour taking notes on your 20 minute intro lecture and I'm still not sure I got everything! So much condensed knowledge, well-organized and professionally presented. I am looking forward to diving in to more of your content. Thank you!
Thanks for this terrific video. I intend to watch all of your videos. I finally grasped what was going on in climate science by creating my own timeline of climate science thinkers beginning wth Josep Fourier in 1827. Timelines help me.
That's great! I learned about them as an undergraduate (many years ago) and have always found them helpful in getting my mind wrapped around the development of ideas.
majestic, well created! the content is nice, i love the design. classical!
You have a gift of teaching.
This is brilliantly informative. Thank you!
this channel is soooo underrated !! I love taking notes. I would like to ask what should I do to start with camus and sartre? do I need to study kant first?
Thanks for your very kind comment! 20th Century Existentialism is a very interesting phenomenon in the history of Western Philosophy, although it didn't have much longevity as a movement. It's impact is probably more profound in shaping literature and film than successive philosophical insight. You'll need to go back further than Kant, since he is, in many respects, responding to David Hume's argument that Empiricism ultimately leads to Skepticism (at least in regard to scientific knowledge). It is my view, that the entire Western philosophical tradition (and this is probably true of other philosophical traditions as well) is a single conversation that has been going on since the late 7th Century BCE. And, as a single conversation it's very difficult to jump in at any point and hope to fully understand what's going on. You really need to start at the begining and work all the way through. BUT, that's a lot to ask if you're not a professional student of Philosophy! :-) So, let me suggest that you at least go back to Hume, and work forward from there. Good luck, and thanks for watching.
Attractively engaging and informative!
your ppts are impressive. in fact, it's all quite impressive. thank you.
Thanks for the comment. They are really designed to merely be introductory and are therefore quite broad. But my hope is that they will get more folks interested in Philosophy as an academic discipline. As 'Sokrates' said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Universities started in the medieval period - with a lot of new theology like scholasticism. Everything that followed was a reaction to it.
Impressive presentation!
Thank you for watching and commenting!
Also worth mentioning the impact of the Golden Age of Islam on Intellectual History as they're the only reason we still have a lot of the ancient greek texts after Christianity tried to burn the lot.
Hi Son of Djinn.
Thanks for the comment! Yes, there's so much to tell in the story of the rise of the rational world view, and the role of the Islamic Empire, especially during the so called Golden Age, is of vital importance.
Thanks for watching!
Perhaps the big elephant in the room is the omission of the influence of Egypt and ultimately the early African civilizations on the Greeks could help us better understand the origin of western philosophy
Hi Bongani! Thanks for commenting!
These videos are SO short and such brief introductions, that, of necessity, lots of important stuff gets left out. Certainly during the Bronze Age, the Helladic and Minoan cultures were dominated by the influences of the Middle and early New Kingdoms. We cannot fully understand their story without the north African influence. The Hellenic cultures of the early Iron Age were somewhat less dominated by their southern neighbors, and more so by their eastern neighbors (as exhibited in the so-called "Orientalized" phase of Archaic Hellenic art). One of the interesting questions is, Why? And the answers to that question are far beyond what my videos are outlining. But you are right, a complete story requires an exploration of all of these.
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Thank you for the clarification your work is highly informative.
Thank you
You are most welcome, Preston!
Excellent.
5:30
It's true that in this episode you are covering the western intelectual history, but nevertheless disregarding the cultures in near east, persia, india and china is unjustified and vomes from the euro-centric and romantitcised western perscpective. Helenism never had any serious impacts in the near east becuse the vast terretories, from the Asia Minor to Persia, to cental asia and india was not a baren land but full of culture, tradition and established scocial orders, which had a stronger influence on Macedonians, and later on Romans. Similarly, the influence of near eastern culture into Europe in particular in science and medicine as well as philosophy in middle ages is undeniable.
Hi Mano! Thanks for the comment.
It is indeed a shortcoming of the format! This video (as well as all these videos) is not intended to be in any way complete or comprehensive, but rather the most basic introduction to a timeline of Western Philosophy (not World Philosophy) for folks who otherwise have no historical context into which to place the very few philosophers introduced. Most of the students I work with have very little historical knowledge prior to the late 20th Century, and almost no knowledge whatsoever of events outside the US. In reality, I'm often starting from ground zero. So I beg your forgiveness and indulgence.
Thanks for watching.
Macedonians were Greek.
Hi MusicianCR! Thanks for watching.
Actually, there is significant dispute over the relationship between the Greeks and the Macedonians. In a very real sense, it comes down to what we mean by being "Greek" (which is itself an interesting problem). The answer to this can be articulated in terms of language, culture, politics, or ethnicity (i.e., genetic identity). Depending on which element you're focusing on, you can get a different answer.
From an historical perspective, the "city-state" Greeks didn't look at their northern neighbors as being Greek. Even Aristotle lists them as among the "barbarian" civilizations. Also, when Alexander wanted to compete in the Olympics, he had to "prove" his "Greek" lineage before he was admitted. Of course they admitted him, because by the 4th Century the poloi had been absorbed into the Macedonian hegemony, so they couldn't really exclude him if they had so wanted.
Linguistically, the "indigenous" Macedonian language seems to be related to a dialect of Archaic Greek, so that could count in favor of them being the same people. But then again, the fact that most Greeks wouldn't understand the dialect cuts in the other direction as well. The very origin of the term "barbarian" is rooted in the inability of "the Greeks" to understand the language of the "other" people.
The Macedonians were politically organized in a traditional monarchy which was rejected by the Greeks in favor of oligarchy, elected kingship, or democracy, so we find divergency there.
The point is, it's an open question and there are arguments on both sides. I tend to come down on the side of them being more different than alike.
Thanks again for watching!
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy The reason you find it hard to accept Macedonians as Greeks is because you have a very specific idea of what Greek is, which I believe to be heavily biased, perhaps because of your interest in philosophy. You mentioned in your video the Mycenaeans, and how we don't know whether they were Greek. This is simply false. We are very certain that the Mycenaeans were indeed Greek. This has been confirmed not only through linguistic research (with the Mycenaeans undisputably speaking an early form of Greek)[1], but also more recently with genetic research [2]. Linear B was deciphered as Greek decades ago. I'm not sure why you would present such a well established fact as an unknown mystery.
The Myceneans provide a wider context of what Greek meant, and that probably does not sit well with your idea of Greek, one that is heavily idealized with intellectuals and philosophers and whatnot. We know that's a tiny fragment of Greek history, specifically limited to the classical attic period. If we set our eyes outside Athens and Athenian satellite poleis, we can easily observe the Mycenaean warrior-culture of the Macedonians among other Greeks like Molossians, Spartans/Dorians and even Aeolians.
If your idea of "Greek" is limited to Athenians and Ionians, then you'll obviously have a hard time seeing the Greek connection with the Mycenaeans, and accepting the Macedonians as Greeks, but that's simply not the case. Other undisputed Greeks, like the Dorians, appear much closer culturally to the Macedonians than the Athenians, with this being confirmed linguistically, since the Pella curse tablet presents a Doric dialect of Greek that was apparently spoken by the Macedonians.
What other Greeks thought of the Macedonians does not say much, especially when we're talking about Athenians -- the ones who were threatened the most by the rise of the Macedonians. You're so heavily relying on what other clearly politically biased Greeks thought, while at the same time you're brushing off strong evidence such as language or that Alexander competed in the Olympics, where only Greeks could participate.
On the issue of language, we both agree that the Macedonians spoke what was essentially a language of the Hellenic branch, closely related to Greek. You claim other Greeks could not understand Macedonian Greek, and my question is what other Greeks? The Ancient Greek dialects were a spectrum, kind of like the languages of Italy. A Sicilian who only speaks Sicilian will be able to communicate with a Napoletano, and a Napoletano will be able to communicate with a Tuscan, but a Tuscan will have a hard time communicating with a Sicilian. The situation was similar in Ancient Greece, with speakers of different dialects able to understand other dialects at widely different degrees. We have many other cases of Greeks being unable to communicate with other Greeks. Further, Athenian claims as to whether they can understand Macedonian Greek or not may have been very politically biased: even nowadays you see Croats and Serbs pretending they can't understand each other despite literally speaking the same language, merely because of spite. How can you automatically assume this wasn't also the case in the heavily political environment of late classical Greece?
> The Macedonians were politically organized in a traditional monarchy which was rejected by the Greeks in favor of oligarchy, elected kingship, or democracy, so we find divergency there.
You mean it was rejected by your own personal definition of Greeks, which really only includes Athenians and Ionians. Many Greek tribes had monarchy, including the Molossians, the Argites, the Spartans and others the further you go back.
Monarchy is literally the only form of government mentioned in the Iliad and Odyssey, the core of Greek literature that you yourself mentioned, yet you don't recognize that as Greek? Even if archaic? Monarchy is widepsread in most of Greek mythology, yet the fact that Macedonians had monarchy somehow shows they're not Greek?
Further, the distinction between Monarchy and Tyrrany (a commong ancient Greek political system) is about how good the leader was perceived to be, as in all other ways they're essentially the same political system.
So, the Macedonians spoke Greek (either a dialect or a closely related language, this is more of a classification issue than anything), practiced Greek religion, referred to themselves as Greeks, had culture and traditions similar to that of Doric Greeks, had a governening system that was widespread among Greeks, and even more so before the classical period. Remind me again, what is the argument for them not being Greek? That the politicalled motivated Athenians called them barbarians?
[1] 1958. The decipherment of Linear B. Cambridge University Press, 1958, John Chadwick
[2] Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans, Harvard Medical School, 2017, Iosif Lazaridis, Alissa Mittnik, Nick Patterson, Subhashis Mallick
Disappointed that the Islamic influence on Western Europe was not mentioned, especially the influence on the Renaissance.
Al Khawarizmi
Al Jazari
Jabir Ibn Hayan
Ibn Rushd
Al Ghazali
Ibn Al Haytham
Al Razi
And so forth.
You are very correct to point out that I've neglected the influence of al-Farabi, ibn Sina, and Ibn Rushd, especially in the development of late Medieval and Renaissance thought. In part it's because these videos are necessarily short and I have to make painful decisions about what to put in and what to leave out, and it's always a challenge. But more importantly, I'm not an expert in Medieval Islamic Philosophy, and I feel VERY uncomfortable including material that is outside my area of expertise.
Thanks so much for watching and commenting!
This is brilliantly informative. Thank you!
Thanks for watching and commenting! Just some very brief introductory videos to help people get started in understanding the Western tradition of Philosophy.