Introduction: Philosophy and the History of Philosophy

Introduction
Philosophy is an edifice or structure -- the highest and most stable edifice -- of human

reason, which moves from the firm foundation of experience and rises to the ultimate

cause to justify that same experience. In an abstract or absolute sense, philosophy could

be realized by healthy and efficient human reason confronted with the riddle of the world

and of life, without tortuous twisting and turnings to reach its goal. The history of

philosophy shows us, however, that the system of philosophy, as in the case of all great

human values, is not obtained save through a gradual, painstaking process which begins

in wonder. To explain or expound this slow, gradual process through which human

thought has constructed its philosophy piece by piece, little by little, -- not always

advancing, but sometimes deteriorating -- is the mainstay of the history of philosophy.

The historical development of philosophy has come about particularly through

four great successive civilizations: Hellenic or Greek, Indian, Classic, Christian, and

Modern. These differ from one another in the solutions which they have offered to

explain the problems of life, existence and reality. Indian philosophy has had little

influence on Western civilization and is not presently included in this outline-history. We

who wish to know the elements which have constructed the civilization in which we take

pride, will begin our study with the exposition of the story of Classic civilization (history

of Greek philosophy) and then pass on to a consideration of Christian and Modern

civilization, expounding the principal systems of each. But it is licit to ask oneself: ‘From

what point should a history of philosophy begin its exposition?’ To begin with, absolutely

speaking, we should say that the history of philosophy opens with the first appearance of

man upon earth. Every man, in whatsoever time and place he lives, cannot but ask

1
himself: ‘Why do I live on this earth?’ and attempt to give some answers to the question.

For this reason it is said that man is naturally philosophical, and that he is philosophizing

even when he believes that he is not and even when he denies the existence of philosophy

or think that philosophy is for fools or unimportant.

In this outline-history, however, we will begin our history of philosophy at that

point in history when philosophy is manifested as a knowing and reflective activity,

critical and systematic. Hence we must leave primitive civilizations because they are not

related to a critical and systematic exposition of philosophic doctrine, although we may

see some sketchy philosophy in many of them. In an objective exposition of a history of

philosophy, it is necessary to keep in mind the ideas and not necessarily the men who

have conceived them. This is because the object of history is the ideas, the theoretical

element, and not the sentiments or moral intentions of the philosophers. It is useful to call

attention to the fact that no one should expect to find actual progress in every unraveling

of philosophical thought. It is true that every philosophical system indicates a

development, an actuation. But that is not to say that every development and every

actuation is for the better. There is also development toward error, which indicates

retrogression rather than progress. Hence it is not necessary to affirm a priori that every

system which succeeds another is of necessity better than the preceding. Progress is a fact

which must be ascertained a posteriori -- by examination and comparison of concrete

facts -- after one has evaluated the system in question in regard to what is the end of

philosophy; the knowledge of absolute reality, the solution of the problem of life.

Finally, let us note that the duty of the historian of philosophy is to reconstruct

objectively the thought of the philosopher, whatever it may be, prescinding from its

2
theoretical value or truth. Only after such work is done in reconstruction will it be

possible to pass to external criticism. We must also know that the history of philosophy is

VERY vast and cannot be finished in a life time not to talk of an introductory work like

this. Fredrick Corpleston, a Jesuit, wrote seventeen volume history of philosophy for

instance. The history of philosophy contains philosophy, but it also contains error, for

history does not always relate signs of progress, but often recounts regression as well.

History hence should be complemented by an external criticism, which judges the

validity or value of every system with reference to the essentially philosophical problem:

the value of life. Again, the brand of history we relate here is somewhat hegemonic in the

sense that we are forced to read this history. Having been colonized by Britain, it means

that we are forced to share in the European tradition which sees itself as the arbiter of

reason throughout the world. The history of Greek philosophy bellies this mentality and

we have adopted it since we were ruled at gun point in a time in our history as some

people believe we are still being ruled at gun point now. Assuming we have been

colonized by China, our story would have been different and if we were not colonized at

all, our story would also be different. But it is an interesting story that showcases all of us

in terms of the capability of human reason and the thinking opportunities in life.

Ancient Period

The history of Philosophy is divided into Ancient, Medieval Modern and

Contemporary periods. Each of thee periods is unique in its beauty and the intellectual

rigmarole that defines philosophy. Each also show how the trajectories of though affected

the other epochs. Studying the history of philosophy demands that our attention must be

centered on the character of the period and also the individual philosophers of the era.

3
This will enable us see the importance of the period and its effects on the entire history.

For instance, the ancient period is characterized by the somewhat romantic engagement

with life and the absence of unnecessary worry about the meaning of life since, it was

believed, the gods are in control of things. The people only needs to worship the gods

adore them and be at the various festivals of the gods and life must continue without

question. All things were answered in terms of myth, mostly coming form the

imputations of Homer, Hesiod and Pindar.

However, the spirit of the ancient period began to change when certain men from

Ionia, in South of Greece or Asia Minor, began to ask important questions that border on

the very fundamental spirit of the time. These Ionians are now regarded as the

forerunners of philosophy since they departed more or less from the religious and

mythical spirit of the age into questioning, scientifically, the root of all things. These men

were later called cosmologists because their questions life centered on discovering the

stuff from which the entire universe is made of. Asking such a question introduced

philosophy into Greek thought system and forever changes it. Philosophy begins in

wonder and these men namely Thales (624-546 B.C), Anaximanes (585-528 B.C) and

Anaximander (610-546 B.C), looked at the breathtaking beauty of their surroundings

and the unanswered questions of their lives to ponder this very fundamental question of

reality. What is the stuff of which the universe is made up of? According to Thales,

answering this very question, ‘water is the primary substance of the universe’. This

submission mirrors Thales own disposition given his geographical location in Ionia. Ionia

was made up of many archipelagos or islands filled with a variety of aquatic life and he

may have seen decay that changed into water and came to conclude that all life forms

4
must have been created from water. He then went ahead to stipulate water as the primary

substance of the universe. We do not know whether there are other components in Thales

life that informed his position since nothing is know about his life except that he

predicted the eclipse of the sun on May 28th 585 B.C. He also did some work in sea

navigation and military maneuvering. Anaximander like Thales looking for the primary

substance of reality submitted that none of the known elements, perhaps water, fire, soil

etc can constitute the stuff of reality. He located this stuff in what he called boundless.

Boundless according to Anaximander has no physical stuff but forms the whole of reality.

Because he was a younger contemporary of Thales, Thales position influenced him into

saying that life itself came from water. He also was a citizen of Ionia whose life mirrors a

great quest for answers concerning the origin of the universe. He was one of the original

proponents of the theory of eternal return which say that all things come into existence

only to disappear to appear again. Another Ionian, Anaximanes differs from this other

two. His position also mirrors that search for the original stuff of the universe. He

submitted that air is the stuff of reality since air gives life to all forms of life so it must be

central to the fundamental attributes of reality. He accused Anaximander of using

meaningless term in submitting that boundless is the stuff of reality.

Although the three Ionian philosophers mentioned were looking for the original

stuff of reality, which placed them squarely in the realm of science, they were also

philosophizing in an important way different from what is obtained in their society. They

departed from religious and mythical explanations off reality into something new and

radical for their time. Their importance lies in our consideration of them as the original

5
philosophers who changed the cause of human reasoning by asking important questions

about reality.

Another early philosophy of the ancient Pre-Socratic period is Pythagoras. By the

way, pre-Socratic philosophy is the part of ancient philosophy that was existing before

the birth of Socrates in 470B.C. Pre-Socratic philosophy, as part of the ancient period is

characterized with looking for the fundamental substance of reality. Pythagoras(570-

497) of Samos, another Greek city, tried to answer the question concerning the search for

the original substance. Pythagoras migrated to Italian city of Crotone. Crotone was under

Greek influence and Pythagoras must have felt at home there. His position is that the

original stuff of reality is number. This mirror is interest in mathematics. We must have

all heard of Pythagoras theory which he developed to prove that numbers provide

harmony in reality. He had other interests. His believed in transmigration of the soul and

he and his followers do not eat beans because the thought it is alive with souls.

Transmigration of the soul is the belief that the soul leaving the body at death migrates to

another person or thing. A soul leaving the body at death may end up inside the body of a

rat thereby making the owner of the soul rat in his next life. Another pre-Socratic

philosopher of note is Heraclitus (540-480). He thought that the fundamental stuff of

reality is fire. Fire for his has some reformatory qualities and is every burning one it is

generated. He also believed that there is no being is the scheme of things. All changes

and creates illusion of stability. In other words, there is flux in all things. There is always

conflict in all things seen. The permanence that we see are illusions that will continue to

deceive us preventing us from knowing how reality is really. This was countered by a

contemporary of his called Parmenides(c. 510). He insists that reality is permanent. In

6
other words, there is no flux. All things are the way they appear to us. They are

permanent.

There are many pre-Socratic philosophers whose lives are of note but we can deal

wit this few. Socrates(470-399 B.C) is the philosopher who instituted disputation among

philosophers, disputations that goes on even today. Socrates did not write anything. All

we know about him came to us through the writings of his student Plato. But we know

through several sources that Socrates belonged to a group of ancient scholars called the

Sophist together with Protagoras and Georgias. These are people who go about, usually

house to house teaching for money. Socrates however did not teach for money. He was at

street corners teaching people through asking philosophical questions, the style

eventually adopted by Plato in all his numerous books of dialogues. Socrates was

eventually killed through the poison called hemlock. Despite his belied in the Greek city-

states and his military service to the country, the rulers of Athens, called thirty tyrants,

the city where Socrates lived and taught, ganged up against him by insisting that he was

poisoning the mind of the youth. The story was later told in full in one of Plato’s books

called Apology. Plato (428-348B.C), a student of Socrates who followed him

everywhere wrote voluminously. His is one of the most prominent philosopher f the

ancient period. His writings and influence runs deep to the extent that an American

Philosopher named Alfred North Whitehead said that all of philosophy is nothing but an

extended footnote to Plato.

There are varying degrees of controversy over which of Plato’s works are

authentic, and in what order they were written, due to their antiquity and the manner of

their preservation through time. Nonetheless, his earliest works are generally regarded as

7
the most reliable of the ancient sources on Socrates, and the character Socrates that we

know through these writings is considered to be one of the greatest of the ancient

philosophers. Plato’s middle to later works, including his most famous work, the

Republic, are generally regarded as providing Plato’s own philosophy, where the main

character in effect speaks for Plato himself. These works blend ethics, political

philosophy, moral psychology, epistemology, and metaphysics into an interconnected and

systematic philosophy. It is most of all from Plato that we get the theory of Forms,

according to which the world we know through the senses is only an imitation of the

pure, eternal, and unchanging world of the Forms. Plato's works also contain the origins

of the familiar complaint that the arts work by inflaming the passions, and are mere

illusions. We also are introduced to the ideal of "Platonic love:" Plato saw love as

motivated by a longing for the highest Form of beauty—The Beautiful Itself, and love as

the motivational power through which the highest of achievements are possible. Because

they tended to distract us into accepting less than our highest potentials, however, Plato

mistrusted and generally advised against physical expressions of love. Plato was the

teacher to another great Ancient Philosopher called Aristotle (384-322).

Aristotle did not agree entirely with his teacher Plato, but they have several

affinities that we could see in their history. Aristotle wrote so much more than Plato since

it was said by Andronicus, his editor that he wrote on all known area of human learning

including nursing! Aristotle joined the Academy and studied under Plato, attending his

lectures for a period of twenty years. In the later years of his association with Plato and

the Academy he began to lecture on his own account, especially on the subject of

rhetoric. At the death of Plato in 347, the pre-eminent ability of Aristotle would seem to

8
have designated him to succeed to the leadership of the Academy. But his divergence

from Plato's teaching was too great to make this possible, and Plato's nephew Speusippus

was chosen instead. At the invitation of his friend Hermeas, ruler of Atarneus and Assos

in Mysia, Aristotle left for his court. He stayed three year and, while there, married

Pythias, the niece of the King. In later life he was married a second time to a woman

named Herpyllis, who bore him a son, Nichomachus. At the end of three years Hermeas

was overtaken by the Persians, and Aristotle went to Mytilene. At the invitation of Philip

of Macedonia he became the tutor of his 13 year old son Alexander (later world

conqueror); he did this for the next five years. Both Philip and Alexander appear to have

paid Aristotle high honor, and there were stories that Aristotle was supplied by the

Macedonian court where Philip and Alexander ruled, not only with funds for teaching,

but also with thousands of slaves to collect specimens for his studies in natural science.

His prominence lies in the fact that he was the one that gave us metaphysics and logic

and made philosophy widely read after he educated Alexander who went ahead to

conquer much of the known world.

Aristotle’s philosophy centered on refuting Plato especially in his theory of forms.

His main contention was that contrary to what Plato thought, there is nothing like the

world of forms. All form subsists in the matter. For instance, a cat shares in form

‘catness’ just like all the other cats and not in some ideal cat in the world of form.

Aristotle’s prominence also centered on his invention of syllogistic logic. He submitted

that arguments follow always from a set of closely related premises which gives credence

to the conclusion. For instance the following argument is an example of Aristotle’s logic:

9
 Mary is the mother of Jesus.

Jesus is God.

Therefore Mary is the Mother of God

Aristotle also wrote extensively on ethics, the science of morality. His Nichomachean

ethics is regarded as the most elaborate text on morality in the ancient period. His man

position is based on the concept of the Golden mean. In other words, all our actions must

be in the middle, no overdoing things otherwise, it will be a vice. After Aristotle’s grand

philosophy, there seem to be a period of chaos in the history of philosophy with no major

philosopher standing out to quell the storm.

Many groups sprang up to seek adherence among people most notably the

Epicureans, Stoics and Skeptics. The Epicureans insisted that the only good life is the

life lived from the point of view of pleasure. It is for them the ultimate good and all pains

and suffering is evil. This school of thought was based on the imputations of the

philosopher Epicurus (342-270B.C). This position was contrasted with that of the Stoics

who thought that we must always pursue pain and suffereing. It is only through this that

the soul is purified and happiness guranteed for the body. This school was founded by

Zeno (334-262B.C). Eventually, a group known as Skeptics emerged to doubt everything

that was in current during their time. The said that humans are incapable of knowing

anything at all and therefore doubting at all times becomes the best virtue. This school

was founded by Pyrrho (361-241B.C). Eventually, Sextus Empiricus (c. 200B.C)

developed the skeptical conclusions bringing it to logical conclusions.

10
Medieval Period

As the skeptics were ravaging the intellectual world, crating grave doubt in people’s

minds, the Christian worldview was taking hold throughout Europe including in Greece.

So there are many things to explain on the part of the Christians in terms of doctrine and

purpose of God that explanation fell on the part of St. Augustine who was converted from

paganism to Christianity having been listening to the lectures of St. Ambrose another

Bishop of the Catholic Church. It must be noted that the Medieval era is regarded as the

period of Catholic hegemony where the Pope and his Bishops decides what people must

believe and what the must do to be friends with God. So the medieval era was replete

with the things of God. It was Augustine who challenged all the pagan and skeptical

arguments of his day making the church bolder, at least in arguments, to decide for

people of this era. Augustine submitted that the only through knowledge is the one from

revelation. So the skeptical argument collapses when we discover that heir position is

based on human ingenuity. Augustine also submitted that morality is also revealed by

God through a person’s conscience. His great work City of God and Confessions serves

as classics for the understanding of the temper of the medieval period. Other prominent

medieval scholars were St,. Anselm Boethius, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas

whose two works, Summa Theologie and Summa Contra Gentiles eventually served as

the main avenue for the philosophical development of the Christian doctrines. Islamic

philosophy represented in Avicenna and Averroes also served as the medieval

understanding of the medieval era from the Islamic point of view. It was the Moslems, by

the way, who recovered most of the works of Plato and Aristotle, saving them from the

book burning frenzy of the Church in the medieval era. The Islamic armies has conquered

11
many parts of southern Europe and have even renamed a town in Portugal Fatima, before

they were driven out by Christian army and was later annihilated at the battle of Lepanto.

During the Islamic stay at Portugal, they cultivated Philosophy and skepticism which the

Church abhors since the deemed it poisonous to the believing mind. They fought against

it and burnt books relating to Philosophy. We would have lost all the works of ancient

philosophy if not for the Islamic stay at Portugal. Eventually, the Church Hellenized itself

and discovered philosophy at the Promptings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas

and made it an important aspect of training of priests and other church leaders.

The medieval era, also known as the middles ages is represented by the lack of

criticism and dearth of scientific world view. The Catholic Church hold sway at this

period making some people refer to it as the dark ages of Europe. However, the Medieval

era helped to usher in the great intellectual revolutions of the modern era since the

thoughts of Augustine and Aquinas help to introduce argumentation and critical thinking,

concepts that were very important for the development of the Modern era.

Modern Era

The modern period was technically ushered in when Martin Luther confronted the church

making it possible for people to question all the teaching of the church that were hitherto

held sacrosanct. Martin Luther had been an Augustinian monk who questioned the

corruption in the Church and lead to the division in the church which we see today.

However, it was the philosophical works of Francis Bacon and not that of Luther that

really ushered in the modern period in the history of philosophy. Bacon, a devout catholic

himself, questioned the claim that the real knowledge is from revelation alone. He

12
submitted that knowledge will be achieved through leaning the order and process in

nature. His positions ushered in the renaissance, a period of rebirth in Europe, where

those things that were destroyed by the ignorant church were recovered. Arts, paintings,

scientific enquiries were recovered leading to the blossoming of philosophy in another

very profound way. The works of Rene Descartes(1596-1650A.D), made him the father

of modern philosophy. He introduced rationalism, the belief that human mind can lead to

knowledge. Descartes was trained by the Society of Jesus, a group of Catholics priests,

other wide called the Jesuits, devoted to the service of the Pope but whose interest in

knowledge lead them to the learning of all aspects of life. Descartes learning lead him

towards philosophy mathematics and science. His main position is one can think, then

that person is capable of achieving knowledge. His statement Cogito ergo sum---I think

therefore I am, became the mantra of modern philosophy since it allowed people to think

for themselves in the pursuit of knowledge. Descartes arrived at Corgito through what he

called methodic doubt. In other words, he emptied his mind of all supposed knowledge

and tried to know if it is possible to know something at all certainly. His then discovered

that his one single irrefutable knowledge can lead to other forms of knowledge. He is

alive therefore he can think! So ‘I think therefore I am’ become for Descartes the base on

which we can rest all other knowledge including our knowledge of God. His arguments

for the existence of God mirror this and even his mathematics. That is, we can, through

ordinary human thinking, and through logic, arrive at true and indubitable knowledge.

Descartes position triggered fruitful dialogues that filled the entire modern period.

The modern period quickly becomes a base of all of philosophy in term of its depth and

variety. Many scholars hearing the position of Descartes tried to respond thereby

13
developing a thoroughgoing philosophical worldview that we have received today and

which has influenced us greatly. Many philosophers tried to support Descartes positions

while other tried to refute it.

Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677A.D), a modern philosopher of Jewish decent,

supported Descartes positions that we can arrive at knowledge through rational thinking.

But he was not directly in tandem with Descartes. Spinoza thought that w can follow

through the methods of geometry and arrive at exact knowledge. What he added to

Descartes was systematic arrangement of principles and axioms that resembled that of

geometry. But Spinoza is categorized with Descartes since he was also a rationalist.

Another modern philosopher whose position tallied with that of Descartes was Gottfried

Leibniz (1646-1716 AD). Leibniz was of the opinion that knowledge is possible through

thinking. But he introduced what he called truth of fact in the argument. In other words, a

posteriori truths (truths of fact) are those truths we can get from experience while a

priori truth (truths of thought) is the on e we get from reasoning in the manner of

Descartes. It was Leibniz that introduced that branch of mathematics called calculus to

show how orderly human thinking can be, even though some people thought that Isaac

Newton discovered it first.

Another modern philosopher, David Hume (1711-1776 AD) denied Descartes’

position and insisted that knowledge if from the sense. His position is called empiricism.

Hume introduced several positions that triggered a battle between the empiricists and the

rationalists. He attacked our inductive nature by saying that by habit is not knowledge at

all since it cannot be proved true. One of our habits, for instance is saying that the sun

14
will rise tomorrow because it has always risen in the past. This means that our nature

although based on induction will always depend on what we hope will happen and this

fails to be knowledge. This battle between the empiricists and rationalist was dealt with

by another prominent modern philosopher called Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). KInat’s

philosophy is very grand in terms of is depth and volume. But his position helped to

make sense of the battle between that rationalists and empiricists. Kant introduced what is

called synthetic a priori to ameliorate this battle. Synthetic a priori means that knowledge

is possible with both the senses and with human reason or thinking but sometimes

knowledge depends on both avenues. For instance, scientific knowledge is possible

though both thinking and through experiments (the senses). The two compliments each

other. But despite Kant’s inputs, the battle goes on. Many other modern philosopher are

either for rationalism, otherwise known as continental rationalism or they are for

empiricism. Many of them did great works in the political philosophy area and morality.

People like John Locke(1632-1704), Jean Jacques Rousseau(1712-1788), Thomas

Hobbes(1588-1679) and George Berkeley(1685-1753) all are great modern philosophers.

However, the advancement in science seems to tilt the balance in the two camps.

The advent of Logical positivism in Vienna, Austria in the 1920s made empiricism the

coin of the day. They made all of science sit in judgment over all other things that is not

science. But they equally brought to an end what we can call modern philosophy, with its

modernity principles. The logical positivists represented in the works of Rudolf Carnap

and Moritz Shilick came to an end when the results and implications of the new physics

came home to everyone. The new physics otherwise known as particle physics changed

15
the course of human discussions and made us think, for the first time, that we don’t know

anything for sure at all.

Contemporary period

The contemporary period is our period. It is filled with ambivalence in terms of the

possibility of human knowledge. The new physics has told us that human knowledge is

nothing but conjectural and must always be prone to faults and failures. As a result of

this, there is despair among philosophers who seek to understand the scope of human

knowledge. The writer Jacques Derrida wrote a book called Deconstruction to best

describe the temper of both written books and human knowledge. He said indeed that it is

possible for us to have any interpretation for any piece of knowledge that might confront

us. In other words, no philosophy can sit in judgment over human reason since nothing in

the contemporary era could be called sacrosanct. This is exactly the position of the

contemporary American Philosopher Richard Rorty. The modern period is aptly

described as post-modern in terms of its contrariness to the modern period. The modern

period offered the possibility for knowledge while this post-modern period offered

nothing. Everything is contextualized. If everything is contextualized, then knowledge is

missing in the scheme of things. This is why ideas like feminist epistemology, Social

epistemology; genetic epistemology is striving in the contemporary era. Some people

have talked about the death of philosophy in the contemporary era since there is nothing

concerning knowledge to judge. However, some philosophers call post-deconstructionist

are already working to recover the temper of philosophy.

16
17