The factual question is as follows:
Who is traditionally said to be the first Greek philosopher?
The answer to this question is "Thales."
The discussion question is as follows:
Why do you think that the notion of "opposition" is often basic to the Greek philosophy versus the philosophies of other societies such as China, which was grounded in the notion of "harmony"?
I think there wasn't as much social harmony in Greek society than in Chinese society. The book notes that in Greece there was a feudal agrarian society, so maybe the Greeks were translating the different opposing social statuses into their philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though the Chinese civilizations were more in tune with nature more so than the Greeks. Chinese philosophy stressed respecting the natural world and coexisting with it in peace. Also, perhaps there was more fighting and conflicts in the European world at this time, so their philosophy could have stemmed from that.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that the Chinese used harmony. True, the Chinese civilization was more in tune with nature as an acting force of cohesion versus opposition, but the Chinese civilization has been continually plagued with war. That is, there have many more years of war than unification throughout Chinese history. Thus, it is a wonder that their philosophy does not incorporate opposition.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason that made the two civilizations develop ideas about balance completely opposite to one another can be found in each one's myths and legends that influenced the philosophies that finally got written down.
ReplyDelete(I'm going to biased toward China in particular because I did a semester's worth of research on that topic last year.)
For instance, the Five Legendary Rulers of China (whose record is not verifiable but whose story is still told and revered today) are 1) 2850 BC – Fuxi and Nüwu (brother-sister team) domesticated animals, built homesteads, taught the people how to fish with nets, introduced fire, channeled rivers, and created writing; 2) 2750 BC – Shen Nong introduced agricultural techniques and medicine by way of herbs and other means; 3) 2700 BC – Huangdi (the “Yellow Emperor”) quelled barbarian tribes, established a calendar, created an infrastructure for plow carts and other vehicles, developed subtle agricultural techniques; his wife practiced silk cultivation; 4) 2350 BC – Yao cared for the people and listened to all of their grievances; and 5) 2250 BC – Shun (a peasant) was completely filial even when his stepmother wanted him dead; because of him familial and imperial management skills became two sides of the came coin.
The morals of these "Great Rulers" are that you need to care for yourself (your family) as much as you do your community; you need to create harmony between the two. (Compare this to the legend of the last emperor of the Xia Period (2150 BC – 1750 BC), Jie, who caused the downfall of the Xia period, and thus began the pattern in Chinese history of dynasties starting out with great, benevolent leaders and destroyed by lax, evil, complacent successors.)
Unfortunately, I don't know as much about the ancient Greek legends and mythology, so I can't quite compare the two. But I think it's reasonable to conclude that the concept of "Harmony" that Confucius expanded and molded into a School of Thought is in part credible to the mythologies and legends of figures who had already made a home as moral virtues in the minds of the Chinese people. They value harmony of elements and in nature because "Harmony" provided the stability these ancient people gave to the common, war-torn civilians. Life is - and has been - better when everything around them is in "harmony," so they emphasize that above all.
Perhaps the Greeks felt "Opposition" was a more familiar way to look at the world around them and justify what they perceived. It just felt a more "right" conclusion to make to them. They maybe felt that nothing could truly last for long because every element in nature has a "natural opponent" that will destroy it, become dominant, and then be crushed by its own opposite; it's just a different way of viewing the change you can't control.