User Controls
Why are Greek philosophers considered more prolific and noteworthy than Roman ones?
-
2019-06-09 at 11:48 PM UTCive always wondered about this.
-
2019-06-10 at 12:05 AM UTCThe romans just didn't have much in the way of notable philosophers. There's Cicero, if you want to be generous, in like the late republic/early empire, then much much later you get Boethius and Aurelius of course, but beyond that there really wasn't anyone of any great significance. And even the most significant among them, Aurelius, was really kinda just developing on/rehashing the Greeks.
Largely the romans just didn't seem to care about philosophy. Their high culture took a lot of cues from the greeks but they just didn't really seem to be as concerned with philosophy. They used Greek mathematics quite a bit but even there I don't think the romans are notable for developing it. And I guess it kind of makes sense, even late Rome was a much younger culture than the greeks at the time of Socrates. Rome had developed from a minor settlement into the dominant power in Italy quite quickly and was at war for most of its existence, they had professional soldiers and a government built around warding off existential risks, I think it's fair to say they were a far more militaristic people than the greeks of, say, Athens, and as a result probably a lot more pragmatic. And less interested in activities like philosophy which takes a lot of time, requires a good bit of excess resources, and isn't particularly economically productive.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-06-10 at 12:11 AM UTCI wonder if there's any record of philosophers or something of the sort from ancient Sumer. Considering they had civilization way before the Greeks did.
-
2019-06-10 at 12:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The romans just didn't have much in the way of notable philosophers. There's Cicero, if you want to be generous, in like the late republic/early empire, then much much later you get Boethius and Aurelius of course, but beyond that there really wasn't anyone of any great significance. And even the most significant among them, Aurelius, was really kinda just developing on/rehashing the Greeks.
Largely the romans just didn't seem to care about philosophy. Their high culture took a lot of cues from the greeks but they just didn't really seem to be as concerned with philosophy. They used Greek mathematics quite a bit but even there I don't think the romans are notable for developing it. And I guess it kind of makes sense, even late Rome was a much younger culture than the greeks at the time of Socrates. Rome had developed from a minor settlement into the dominant power in Italy quite quickly and was at war for most of its existence, they had professional soldiers and a government built around warding off existential risks, I think it's fair to say they were a far more militaristic people than the greeks of, say, Athens, and as a result probably a lot more pragmatic. And less interested in activities like philosophy which takes a lot of time, requires a good bit of excess resources, and isn't particularly economically productive.
Plus, why would the Romans focus on philosophy if Greece was doing it for them at little cost? It's kind of like asking why America doesn't have as many prominent manufacturers as China. They reap all the benefits of Chinese manufacturing without any of the associated cost, just as Rome reaped all the benefits of Hellenistic thinking. The consequences of this reliance are similar as well, with America growing economically dependent on foreign manufacturing and Rome eventually becoming Hellenized and culturally dependent on the philosophers of Greece. 🤔 -
2019-06-10 at 1:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The romans just didn't have much in the way of notable philosophers. There's Cicero, if you want to be generous, in like the late republic/early empire, then much much later you get Boethius and Aurelius of course, but beyond that there really wasn't anyone of any great significance. And even the most significant among them, Aurelius, was really kinda just developing on/rehashing the Greeks.
Largely the romans just didn't seem to care about philosophy. Their high culture took a lot of cues from the greeks but they just didn't really seem to be as concerned with philosophy. They used Greek mathematics quite a bit but even there I don't think the romans are notable for developing it. And I guess it kind of makes sense, even late Rome was a much younger culture than the greeks at the time of Socrates. Rome had developed from a minor settlement into the dominant power in Italy quite quickly and was at war for most of its existence, they had professional soldiers and a government built around warding off existential risks, I think it's fair to say they were a far more militaristic people than the greeks of, say, Athens, and as a result probably a lot more pragmatic. And less interested in activities like philosophy which takes a lot of time, requires a good bit of excess resources, and isn't particularly economically productive.
Beautifully articulated.👍 -
2019-06-10 at 6 PM UTCmarcus aurelius or xenophon?
-
2019-06-10 at 7:16 PM UTCCicero or Plato?
-
2019-06-10 at 7:23 PM UTClittle boots/caligula up your ass canal
-
2019-06-11 at 9:47 AM UTC
-
2019-06-12 at 6:55 AM UTC
-
2019-06-12 at 7:11 AM UTC
-
2019-06-12 at 10:21 AM UTCWas xenophon a philosopher? I have his history[Peloponnesian war] but nothing else by him.
edit:fucc, need more xeno in my life -
2019-06-12 at 10:55 AM UTC
