Katherine Elliot

Professor Stephens
Environmental Ethics & Policy
19 January 2018
What we can learn from the Greeks

One can learn a lot about the history of environmental philosophy from the ancient

Greeks. The first Greek natural philosophers or “Presocratics” focused foremost on physis or

nature, as opposed to anthropogony and politogony (Callicott, van Buren, Brown 4). They

emphasized an interdisciplinary approach to the study of philosophy lacking the separation

between natural and moral philosophy. One of the most interesting developments in ancient

greek natural philosophy is the idea of “environmental determinism,” or the idea that “human

beings are shaped not only by cultural but also by environmental influences” (Ibid 30).

Presocratic thinkers, such as Anaximander, used this idea to study how the natural climate of

Greece contributed to the development of Greek society. Despite these advancements, when

Socrates began to philosophize, his sole focus on morality eventually encouraged a separation of

disciplines into science and philosophy. This separation still heavily influences our modern

understanding of disciplines today. However, new patterns of thinking have emerged,

specifically in terms of approaches to environmental issues.

In line with the prevailing perspective of the 20th century, many thought that human

culture and values acted separately to the “facts” of nature. In the midst of an environmental

crisis, some began to evaluate how they view the natural world and the role that humanity has in

it. As the Gaia hypothesis emerged, championed by James Lovelock, it began to merge with

cutting-edge climate-related research that recovered the methodology of natural philosophy

founded centuries before by the ancient Greeks (Ibid 313). Additionally, many began to

categorize the approaches and perspectives people have towards the environment, or
environmental worldviews (Miller and Spoolman). Despite these advancements, in society today

there is still major conflict between this current approach to the natural world, and former more

anthropocentric approaches. In order to aid this misunderstand many are calling for philosophy

to stop acting as such a specialized discipline, and instead act as way of unifying the natural and

human world (Callicott, van Buren, Brown 324). The book Greek Natural Philosophy presents

the separation of disciplines, specifically science and philosophy, as one of the catastrophes of

modern thinking. It also proposes that in order to solve environmental problems, we must once

again let philosophy and science closely inform each other. However, I tend to disagree that this

is a proper solution to our pressing environmental issues.

While I do agree that science and philosophy need to inform each other on a basic level, I

am hesitant to encourage their fusion any further. The case of stem cell research exemplifies my

reasoning. Stem cell research is often the topic of many philosophical debates. People are often

adametily for or against the use of stem cells in research on the basis of their values, religious

beliefs, or approaches to science. However, even though there is vast moral debate, stem cell

research still continues all over the world. This is because we need stem cell research to create

cures and treatments for some of the world’s most pressing public health problems, such as

cancer, birth defects, genetic diseases, etc. Stem cell research is not just relevant for humanity, it

is also relevant to many species that may face dying populations due to deadly diseases. For

example, using stem cell therapy, researchers have taken the first step toward developing an

effective treatment for devil facial tumor disease (DFTD), which is decimating Tasmanian devils

in the wild (Morris Animal Foundation). If philosophy further informed decisions regarding stem

cell research, there would probably more severe barriers to research then there are now. While

philosophy is positive in that it provides moral checks, if it has more influence than it does now
 pursuits of scientific inquiry could suffer delays. I also fear that merging science and philosophy

would lead to decreased specialization in either field; this specialization has allowed humanity to

get to the moral and scientific place that we are at now. While I agree that interdisciplinary

approaches to environmental problems are incredibly important, the key to actually solving the

problems is having separate but communicative disciplines that have different knowledge and

perspectives.

Word Count: 678

Question: What are the positive aspects of the separation of educational disciplines? Has the

compartmentalization allowed for increased expertise in certain fields?

Works Cited

Baird Callicott, J., John Van Buren, and Keith Wayne Brown. Greek Natural Philosophy. 1st ed.

Cognella , 2018.
Miller, G., and Scott Spoolman. "Environmental Problems, Their Causes and Sustainability." In

Living in the Environment, 5-30. 17th ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 2012.

Morris Animal Foundation. "Stem cell research provides hope for tasmanian devils with a deadly,

transmissible cancer." ScienceDaily.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180208162039.htm (accessed March 7, 2018).