Philosophy of One on the Many

2016 Lawrence Eleyot. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse  06/16/2016

ISBN: 978-1-5246-3581-7 (e)

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

CONTENTS

FORWORD

CHAPTER 1

THE FIRST TENTATIVE REASONING

B.C. 3500— Book of the Dead, Priest of Senferu, Ptahhotep

2400— Babylonian Tablets, Tablets from Nippur, Gilgamesh Epic, Ipuwer, Eloquent Peasant, Baba

1400— Amenemope, Codes of Law, Ikhnaton,  HittiteCode, Two Brothers

800—  Hebrew Patriarchal Stories,Amos, Hosea, Isaiah I, Micah

700—  Assyrian Tablets, Zoroaster, Book of Deuteronomy, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Jeremiah

CHAPTER 2

BEFORE SOCRATES

600— Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Isiah II,Pythagoras, Xenophanes

500— Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Empledocles

450— Anaxagoras, Archelaus, Philolaus, Melissus.Leucippus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Hippias, Prodicus

CHAPTER 3

THE CLASSIC ERA

425— Socrates, Democritus, Euclid, Antisthenes, Cratylus

400— Aristippus, Plato, Xenophon, Eudoxus, Diogenes of Sonope, Speusippus, Xenocrates

350— Aristotle, Theophrastus

CHAPTER 4

CULTURE OF THE ⁴th - ¹st CENTURY B.C.

THE HELLENISTIC ERA

350— Pyrrho, Book of Job, Epicurus

300— Zeno of Citium, Euhemerus, Strato, Arkesilaus,Cleanthes, Timon

250— Chrisippus, Zeno of Tarsus

200— Carneades, Ecclesiastes, Aristobulous

150— Clitomachus, Panaetius

100— Posidonius, Andronicus, Lucretius, Cicero,Aenesidemus

50— Q. Sextius, Sotion

CHAPTER 5

EARLY CHRISTIAN

A.D. 1— Philo Judaes, Jesus

50— Paul, Senecca, Barnabus, Pliny the Elder, Gospels, Plutarch, Clement, Epictetus

100— Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Nicomachus, Marcion, Justin.

150— Numenius, Marcus Aurelias, Lucian, Tatian, Galen, Irenaeus, Sextus Empiricus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian

200— Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ammonius Saccas Diogenes Laertius, Origen, Sabellius, Cyprian, Plotinus

250— Amelius Gentilianus, Mani, Porphry, Hermes Trismegistus

300— Arnobius, Lactantius, Eusebius, Jamlichus, Chalcidius, Arius, Athanasius

350— Apollinaris, Aphraates, Victorianus, Julian, Ambrose, Jerome, Jovinian, Donatus, Plutarch of Athens, Macrobius, Augustine, Pelagius

400— Hypatia, Martianus Capella, Nestorius

450— Proclus, John Stobaeus, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

500— Dionysius Exiguus, Boethius, Cassiodorus, Damascius, Simplicius

550— Evagrius, Gregory of tours, Gregory the Great

600— Isidor, Maximus the confessor

CHAPTER 6

MOHAMMED TO ANSELM & AQUINAS (600-1300)

650— Mohammed, Sverus, Sebokht, Aldhelm

700— Bede the Venerable, John of Damascus

750— Paul the Deacon, Alcuin

800— Rhabanus Maurius, Paschasius Radbertus, Al-Kindi, Gottschalk

850— Erigena, Photius, Eric of Auxerre, Remy of Auxerre

900— AL-Farabi, Saadia ben Joseph

950— Suidas, Gerbert

1000— Avicenna, Berenger, Bahya, Peter Domain, Lanfranc

1050— Costantine the African, Gabirol (Avicebron) , Anselm, Manegold, Odo, Roscelin, Al-Ghazali

1100— William of Champeaux, Adelard, Abelard, Bernard of Chartres, Gilbert de la Porrée, Theodori of Chartres William of Conches, Judah ha-Levi, Abraham ben Ezra, Hugh, Peter the Lombard

1150— Abraham ben David, Gerard, John of Salisbury, Richard of St. Victor, Averroes, Alan, Maimonides, Joachim, Amalric

1200— Grosseteste, William of Avergne, Bartholomew, Alexander of Hales, David of Dinant, Adam Marsh, Albert the Great

1250— R. Bacon, William of Moerbeke, John of Fidanza (Bonaventure), Thomas Aquinas, Witelo, Peter of Spain, Siger of Brabant, Raymond Lully, Peckham, Matthew of Aquasparta, Olivi, Dietrich of Freiberg, Peter of Albano, Eckhart

CHAPTER 7

CHANGE TOWARDS MODERN PHILOSOPHY (1300-1600)

1300— Scotus, Marsilius of Padua, Nicholas of Autrecourt William of Ockham, Levi ben Gerson, John of Jandun, Buridan, Tauler, Nicholas of Oresme

1350— John Wycliffe, Hasdai Crescas

1400— Gerson, Huss, d’Ailly, Marsilius of Ingen, Raymond of Sabunde, Joseph Albo, à Kempis, Nicholas of Cusa

1450— Biel, Fincino, Abarbanel, da Vinci, John Pico, Agostino Nifo

1500— Erasmus, Machiavelli, Pomponazzi, Thomas More, Zwingli, Martin Luther, Paracelsus, Frank, Calvin, Petrus Ramus

1550— Girolamo Cardano, Telesio, Sozzini, Montaigne, Bruno, Zabarella, Weigel, Patrizzi, Suarez

CHAPTER 8

EARLY MODERN THOUGHT (1600-1700)

1600— Charron, Boehme, F. Bacon, Campanella, Herbert, Grotius, Galileo, Jansen, Descartes, Digby, Whichcote, Gassendi

1650— Hobbes, Harrington, Pascal, Boyle, Glanvil, Arnauld, Sergeant, Geulincx, Henry More, Cumberland, Pufendorf, Malebranche

1675— Spinoza, Cudworth, Fox, Newton, Locke, Burthogge, Toland, Bayle

CHAPTER 9

KNOWN AS THE PERIOD OF ENLIGHTENMENT (1700-1800)

1700— Norris, Clarke, Mandeville

1710— Berkely, Cooper, Collier, Collins, Leibniz, Wolff

1720— Wollaston, Vico

1730— Tindal, Gay, Butler, Hume, Bolingbroke

1740— Montesquieu, La Mettrie, Hartley, Swedenborg

1750— Baumgarten, Home, Edwards, Diderot, Condillac, Hutcheson, Burke, Boscovich, Helvétius, d’Alembert, Adam, Smith, Voltaire, Rousseau

1760— J. H. Lambert, Reid, Lessing, Menddelssohn

1770— Baron d’Holbach, Beattie, Euler, Priestley, Monboddo (Burnett), Price

1780— Kant, Allen, Herder, Jacobi, Cabanis, Bentham

1790— Maimon, Stewart, Fichte, Schelling, Schleiermacher, Schegel

CHAPTER 10

FIRST HALF:

NINETEENTH CENTURY

1800— Hamann, de Tracy, Paley, Fries, Herbart

1810— Krause, Maine de Biran, St. Simon, Hegel, Coleridge, de Maistre, Schopenhauer

1820— Jefferson, Beneke, Cousin, James Mill, Hamilton

1830— Rosmini-Serbati, Mackintosh, Comte, de Lammenais, Carlyle, Strauss, Emerson, Poisson, Bolzano, Whewell, Ruge, Gioberti

1840— Trendelenburg, Baur, Feuerbach, Parker, Cournot, J. S. Mill, Kierkegaard, Engels, Stirner, Vischer, De Morgan

Chapter 11

SECOND HALF: NINETEENTH CENTURY

1850— Moleschott, Gobineau, Boole, Thoreau, Renouvier, Fischer, Büchner, Bain, Lotze, Ritschl, Buckle, Mansel, Darwin

1860— Fechner, Spencer, Lassalle, Helmholtz, Huxley, Ueberweg, J. Grote, Dühring, Lange, Marx, Porter, Ravaisson, von Hartman

1870— Newman, De Sanctis, Taine, Ardigò, Lachelier, H. Cohen, Didekind, Spir, Sigwart, Janet, Teichmüller, Jevons, Bretano, Fiske, Boutroux, Lewes, Müller, Sidgwick, Stephen, Michelet, Pope Leo XIII, Wright, Peirce, Clifford, Balfour, Frege

1880— Wundt, Venn, Jodl, Dilthey, Green, G. S. Morris, Stumpf, Matineau, Abbot, Mach, Nietzsche, Volkelt, Tönnies, Bosanquet, Avenarius, E. Caird, Deustua

1890— Harris, Fouillée, James, Schroeder, Simmel, Bradley, Durkheim, Blondel, Windelband, Peano, Ostwald, Ladd, Cantor, Plekhanov, Stout, Rickert, Hobhouse, McTaggart, Lipps, Ehrenfels, Hodgson, Creighton, Lloyd, Haeckel, J. Ward, Hilbert

CHAPTER 12

TWENTIETH CENTURY

1900— Howison, Höffding, Eucken, Plank, Husserl, Royce, Poincaré, Croce, Schiller, Taylor Russell, Moore, Foerster, Zermelo, Santayana, Cassirer, Meinong, Rashdall, Bergson, Calkins, Adler, Bowne, Tufts, Driesch, Brouwer, Muensterberg, Brunschvicg, Lenin

1910— Nartorp, Dewey, Haeberlin, McDougall, Boodin, Vaihinger, Hocking, Grabmann, Perry, Wertheimer Külpe, Unamuno, Watson, Spranger, Macintosh Freud, Scheler, Gentile, Jung, Pringle-Pattison, R. Otto, Geyser, Stern, Schlick, Turro y Darder, Jaspers

1920— Alexander, Weber, Morgan, Lévy-Bruhl, Leighton, Korn, Wittingenstein, Berdyaev, Ortega y Gasset, P. E. More, Montague, Nuñez, Regüeiro, Broad, Koffka, Woodbridge, Hartmann, Heidegger, Xirau, Whitehead, Lewis, Köhler

1930— Huizinga, Lovejoy, Brightman, Muirhead, M. R. Cohen, Ramsey, Gödel, Stace, Tarski, Carnap, Mead, Quine, Temple, Reichenbach, Ayer, Gilson, Vasconcelos, Pratt, Maritain, Romero, Barth, Ross

1940— Blanshard, Frank, Sartre

SCHOOLS OF PHILOSOPHY AND THEIR SUPPORTERS

THE MOCKERY CALLED RELIGION

FORWORD

BY: THE AUTHOR

We have become a society of peoples, who choose to place far too much value and importance on our capacity to see. Even then we choose only what we want to see, and that in the main, with our mind’s eye….What we imagine. As a result we stay forever blind to the truth and our visual capacity soon ignores what it truly sees in preference for what it imagines it can see delving within itself, and so we are lulled into the realms of belief, lacking actual knowledge, which in actuality is the truth and as such, reality!

For this sad and unhappy state we must look to the influence over the past few decades, at the growing practice of psychology. Psychologists are people who believe they can see something behind what we see and have overtaken our society in much the same way as religion did before it. Both have a strong foothold, but both remain whatever you may think, beliefs! Not of The Real, but outside of it. We ignore The Real at our peril, as society grows ever closer to being taught what to think, what to see, instead of questioning and exploring true knowledge. Soon we’ll begin to loose the art of thinking for ourselves, content to take verbatim what we are told, and how long before we become virtual automatons without character and diversity of thought.

The exploration and questioning of life and living, finding the truth, rather than believing in the metaphysical or theoretical world of perhaps, or may be, is what philosophy questions and deals with. It is not just a subject for an elite few. Anyone who truly wants to know and gives his or her mind to it, can philosophise, having first gained the truth.

The truth costs nothing although at times it is hard to come by and there will always be those with vested interests who will endeavour to keep it from you; particularly is this so when questioning the beliefs of religion, who’s leaders believe their beliefs are sacrosanct and not to be questioned. The right to believe cannot be denied; the needs of some to believe is precious to them.

Let them have their beliefs, but it is often their ignorance of the truth that results in the fanaticisms in religion; never was this more so than at this present time with the religion we know as Islam and the atrocities they have perpetuated in the name of Mohammed; their so called prophet.

All religion is built on a false premise………That there is, or was a god. There is not now, nor was there ever such a being, save in the minds of men.

No god, that is depicted as being kind and merciful to his creation would ever countenance the dreadful and unnecessary waste of life men perpetrate on each other in futile wars and their insatiable need for revenge.

In the first recordings of our history, we learn we had a Polytheistic system of gods and it was not until 1375BC. that Monotheism took hold and the rulers of that time decided there would be but one single deity. The actual truth of our beginnings as societies, starts way back before Thales*, but for some mysterious reason, known only to our educationalists, the study of philosophy invariably starts with Thales, prior to him it seems is not considered worthwhile study, yet it is where all religion began. Could it be that it is because it speaks too much of truth and shatters some of our most treasured beliefs, particularly in religion, and the presence, or existence of a god?

Many Philosophers studied Theology and became Theologians. For the history of philosophy we may read also Theology.

This is a look at the history of philosophy from our very earliest recordings, it shows quite clearly how god, the angels and Satan actually came into being. Never fear to know the truth, it will set your mind free and sort belief from fact and true knowledge.

It may be found helpful and sometimes is useful for students of philosophy merely to locate a thinker in time and space and to review his fundamental tenets without dwelling too long upon him. I trust and believe that this work assists in that requirement. Philosophers, like other human beings, live at definite times and in particular places; their ideas are necessarily affected by environmental influences. Further-more, though their thinking is sometimes intricate, there are certain basic conceptions which lie at the heart of their theories.

Many writers of text books in philosophy begin with a brief summary of the history of philosophy. But the expression of the personal perspective of each writer as he looks at such a history is an extra textual concern. An impersonal presentation of the general features of the history should be the starting point for personal interpretation and emphasis. Such a presentation could serve as background for many individual developments. A writer of the history of thought should not confine himself to those points of view that he personally finds convincing. He should know the views he does not accept as well as those he does, for the sake of fairness to all and for the sake of the contrasts which result from comparing the acceptable with the unacceptable. A number of recent texts in philosophy begin with a point of view which is not universally accepted and which makes them difficult to use except as a set of theses to be combated. These texts may provide excellent presentations of particular points of view, but not equally good presentations of contrasting viewpoints.

This presentation is in very strict chronological sequence in order to give a more accurate impression of the actual course of history. It is customary for works, even on history, to move back and forth in time, in order to keep intact certain relations of thought. This practice is based on the notion that a history must be a work of art and present certain unities. But history is not primarily artistic; and it is worthwhile to maintain crude actuality rather than to try to improve upon it by substituting aesthetic unity for real occurrence. If the result is less artistic, at least it is more realistic, more true to fact and I make so bold as to suggest that my personal somewhat caustic comment, helps to alleviate to some extent, the tedium, if not for everyone. Thoughts logically relevant to each other often occur independently, to be related later in a mind that surveys the past. This can be done here too; it can be done even better when the one who does it sees clearly that he is doing it. The order of succession in this work has been based upon the date of publication of the writer’s most characteristic work or the earliest work in which his position is clear. In earlier periods in which dates are not definite it is assumed that the individual was flourishing at about the age of forty.

The procedure adopted gives a clearer sense of the relative richness and poverty of different periods. It has also led to the mention of some names hardly known at all, in order to show that at least a minimum of philosophic interpretation was occurring at all times, (and as mentioned earlier in my forward, long before many writers are prepared to consider), but constituting the means of continuity by which the torch of learning was handed on. The effort in the most part has been to capture the general spirit and point of view of each thinker, as presented in one of his main works, yet also, in the case of especially important men, to suggest their intellectual biographies as indicated by the chronological succession of their writings, and so to indicate important transitions in their thinking, as in the case of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Kant, and others. More than average space has been allotted to those works which are recognized classics and the influence of which upon the history of philosophy has been outstanding. As time has passed, there have been many noble teachers who have carried the tradition, but who have not proved decidedly original or influential. Yet their names are met now and then, and the reader will doubtless welcome a brief identifying statement about them.

Prefixed to each chapter is a short commentary on the content of the section. The reader scanning these summaries may obtain a very succinct survey of the course of Western thought.

The writer gladly acknowledges debt to the many advisors and supporters for many valuable suggestions, but exonerates them of any responsibility for defects. He wishes in particular to express appreciation to Albert E. Avey. For his excellent work, along with his publishers Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Lastly, but most importantly I wish to impart my thanks and gratitude to my Dear son Andrew and to my sister Greta, who have been a tower of strength and encouragement to me during this work and have given me their support enabling me to finish the task.

CHAPTER 1

THE FIRST TENTATIVE REASONING

It was a chap who went by the name of William James, who first suggested that philosophy is, Our more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply means. It evolved around all sorts of important questions such as, (as Immanuel Kant tells us,) What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope? A theoretical question, a practical question and a speculative one, on the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves and our relation to it.

These questions and more have been thought over from time to time, throughout all recorded time. The answers at first hardly analytical, rather more intuitive in outcome, it being far easier to suggest superficially plausible answers, rather than answers based on sound positive reason. Be that as it may, intuitive answers to difficult questions resulted in the first steps, which sufficed to give the first sense of the meaning of life.

Perhaps we should bear in mind that the records of the early ages of man are very incomplete and that the impression that we get of the evolution of ideas is very staggered. There was not an even steady flow of ideas, they came about as befitted the occasion.

Only later after reflection, were they sorted and weaved into ordered systems. This is true to some extent today, because not all minds build complete pictures or structures. Human thought is still episodic*, uneven and disconnected. As a result in order to give an accurate impression, the story of human beliefs must show this uneven and unsystematic character of experience.

It is to the Near East - the civilisations of the Nile and the Tigris - Euphrates valleys, that we turn for our earliest picture of the principle aspects of Western thought. It is impossible to say which of these was the earlier civilisation, but the majority of the oldest relevant records, which have survived to the present time, have come from Egypt, with supplementary records emanating from Babylonia. They believed that an essential condition for approval in the hereafter was the living of an upright life here on earth. There are, accordingly, statements regarding conduct from both the collective and social and individual points of view. Interest in theology was concerned at first with the destiny of the individual, but in time it resulted in a more independent appreciation of the goodness of a mysterious divine being, and finally, as a sense of communion with a personal closeness to some form of a god into which the divine being had developed. The Babylonians changed this style of Egyptian thinking with the question of the origin of things. Stories of a disastrous flood, and the formulation of codes of law for the regulation of human relations.

Hebrew written literature started to appear in the middle of the eighth century B.C. it started with religiously minded men, very much like the preachers of today, who were people seeking to know the will of a god they had come to believe in and trying to make something of the meaning of history and devising codes and principles of ethical conduct. They saw in their own traditions and peoples fine examples of character, which, they thought, should inspire future generations. It was these same writers who laid out the guiding principles of social justice and formulated the idea of the one benevolent deity, god, in relation to man. They came to look on all the sufferings of man as a sort of punishment from god, for all man’s sin.

Book of the Dead (3500 B.C.) Ancient records showing man’s earliest concerns, was to do with man’s destiny through eternity. In the Egyptian Book of the Dead, chapter LXIV dating from the First Dynasty shows this aspect of their thinking at that time as a positive conviction, rather than a problem. They obviously believed in the immortality of the soul, since as far as they were concerned, an individual’s destiny was affected by his conduct in this life. We now see why the question, What ought I to do? is so important in both social and in the individual senses.

Priest of Seneferu (c. 2900 B.C.) Even at this early stage in history the concerns were concentrated on social ethics. The main reason it appears, was dissatisfaction with the social situation at the time. One of King Seneferu’s priests complained of the confusion in the land; due to the lack of rules for the guidance of social conduct. Gangs of robbers were a problem and business was badly managed.

Ptahotep (c. 2600 B.C.) Those very rules of conduct which Seneferu’s priest had complained about, were stated by Ptahotep, counselling how one should conduct oneself in the presence of a man of superior wisdom and in the presence of an equal who speaks evil; indicating one’s proper attitude to a social inferior if he shows ability; truth and uprightness in the fulfilment of one’s duties to their office. There were a number of suggestions made by Ptahotep, like being kind and not frightening people, staying and promoting calmness, each suggestion being made, as was appropriate to the occasion. There was no attempt to systemise or theorise. Many god’s ruled the universe, and should be worshiped.

Babylonian Tablets (c. 2400B.C.) The origins of the universe were a constant source of enquiry more than four thousand years ago in Babylonia. Speculation on this point was discovered on a clay tablet from the city of Nippur, in Polytheistic terms, they also queried the origin if things like men, fields, grain, flocks temples, houses, clothing and irrigation. The question of man’s creation and the purpose of his existence, shows on many tablets that have been found from that date. They believed that man had been formed from the blood of a god and that man’s purpose was to worship the gods.

Tablets from Nippur (c. 2200 B.C.) A great flood and man’s complete destruction is told in a story interpreted from a series of tablets found at Nippur. Man and animals were granted a fresh beginning. There are indications that conjuring was rife, a hero was granted immortal life. The tablets tell of the origin of a city, and the starting of agriculture was stated at some length. There were considerations over the problems of death, plants were beginning to be used for medicinal purposes, suffering and disasters were of considerable concern. As a result, a form of prayer: appeal to the gods for forgiveness for all man’s wrongdoing, for health and prosperity and the glorification of the most high gods.

Gilgamesh Epic (c. 2000 B.C.) [Babylonia]. The author of Gilgamesh Epic, after meditating on the meaning of life, came to the conclusion that the best way to live one’s brief time on this earth, was to forget about immortality, eat, drink and be happy, morning, noon and night. To enjoy bright coloured clothes and be jolly with one’s wife and family.

Ipuwer (1800 B.C.) [Egypt]. Admonitions of Ipuwer. Ipuwer wished for the end of the human race. He wrote that religious scepticism was rife, men were lazy. He believed a shepherd was needed to guide his people and drive away all evil. The Hebrews later took up this theme.

Eloquent Peasant (1800 B.C.) [Egypt]. In the story of the Eloquent Peasant, once again we hear the demands of social conscience being reflected, which criticised the unscrupulousness of petty officials and the delays in the justice system.

Baba (1600 B.C.) [Egypt]. It was in the Eighteenth Dynasty that Baba announced his preparations against the days of famine ahead, proclaiming the virtue of his conduct, his attitude toward his parents and relatives and his punishment if evildoers.

Amenemope (1400 B.C.) In the Wisdom of Amenemope, he warned against robbing of the poor, describing the practical ethics of his time, failing to aid the aged, becoming haughty, exposing people to unnecessary risks, returning evil for evil and various other acts of human decency. He had a great respect for the temple and for the property of a neighbour.

Codes of Law (1400 B.C.). In Assyria, Codes of Law, for regulating social relations. One of them deals with the conduct of women, and men’s relationship with them; also it deals with matters cultivation and real estate.

Ikhnaton (c. 1375—c.—1358 B.C.). [Egypt]. He was Amenophis IV, or Amenhotep as we know him, but he changed his name to Ikhnaton—or Arkhenaton; Aton is satisfied. Aton was, represented by the sun’s disk; in connection with his efforts to supplant the complex priestly system at Thebes, with a monotheistic concept of a benevolent deity/creator, which as already mentioned, was to be Aton. He therefore made a decree that Aton was the only God/Creator and all other gods were forbidden. The latter was believed to be interested in the welfare of all his creatures throughout nature. He had also built a new capital on the Nile, halfway between Thebes and Memphis. His reforms were only temporary, being out of tune, with his age. These writing survive to us from El Armarna and contain protestations of loyalty and upright conduct, which originated in the region of Palestine, in a series of letters from officials. At his death polytheism returned and many priests once more became powerful at Thebes.

Hittite Code (1350 B.C.). [Asia Minor]. A code of laws was found at Boghas Koi, which dealt with women, bandits, leased land, damages and several other matters, which were common to the Hittite society.

Two Brothers (1200 B.C.) [Egypt]. In the Tale of the Two Brothers, we are shown in concrete form the characters of an upright young man and the well-intentioned, but deluded brother and the improper conduct of an elder brother’s wife.

Hebrew Patriarchal Stories (800 B.C.) The Hebrew Patriarch’s took up the pagan stories of the great flood and the accounts of the creation, and in the eighth century, embodied them in great literary form into the accounts of the origins of human institutions and in portrayals of the Hebrew people as they are found in the Jewish Torah… Bible…the Christian Old Testament. Contemporary records, later re-edited many, many times, have come to us from the Hebrew so-called prophets, (Story tellers), Amos, Hosea, Isaiah I, and Micah. Monotheism was now taking a stronger hold. It was Hosea who first suggested that there was only one known god/creator and that was the god Aten, of Arkhenaten who was then known as (see: Ikhnaton (c. 1375—c.—1358 B.C.). [Egypt].) Now known as Armenhotep IV. The Hebrews accepted the only true god and changed its name which we only know in terms of the tetragrammaton, יהוה. The Hebrew theonym.

Amos (750 B.C.) [Tekoa Bethal]. We get several significant ideas from Amos: the law of the inevitable consequences of conduct, as it operates in life; the rule that as a nation sows, so shall it reap; the superiority of ethical over formal religion; the essential status of justice in society; the moral responsibility of nations as well as individuals; the unity of the One Divine Being.

Hosea (740 B.C.). [Jerusalem]. Amenophis IV, obviously impressed Hosea, because he repeated the king’s suggestion that a God/Creator should be perceived as a single benevolent deity, loving his people as a true husband loves even his unfaithful wife, or as a father loves his son.

Isaiah I (737-690 B.C.) [Jerusalem]. Isaiah I, in his picture of history, interpreted the advance of the Assyrian army as an instrumentality for justice in the hands of Jehovah. He contrasted reliance upon physical strength along with moral stamina. And reiterated the imperative of one God/Creator for all Jews

Micah (710 B.C.). [Moresheth]. The thoughts of Isaiah were supported by the preaching of Micah, who saw man’s religious duty as consisting in humility and the doing of good. There is and can be only one god who was the creator of all things in the universe; he only is worthy of our consideration.

Note: Hebrew prophets elaborated on the discussion of the evils in society, which the Babylonians and the Egyptians had criticised. Our knowledge of Hebrew philosophy is more extensive, owing in part to a fuller preservation of Hebrew records.

Assyrian Tablets (700 B.C.) The Assyrian rulers had retold the stories of the creation of the world and of the flood stories that had come down from a much earlier time. As a result, these stories now exist in a much longer and more detailed form than earlier versions, suggesting that they have been much elaborated upon. The Assyrians also made collections of proverbs for the guidance of daily life. These tablets were discovered in the seventh century B.C.

Zoroaster (660-583 B.C.) [Persia]. It was this ruler who brought a fundamental emphasis of thought which was to have a very important influence in later times. He saw in all the processes of the universe a continual struggle between good and evil, truth and falsehood. His interpretation was dualistic, for every positive there was a negative, in terms of Ahura Mazda (god of light) and Angra Mainya (bad spirit) with their hosts of archangels. It was with the knowledge of these thoughts during the Exile that the Hebrews developed the idea of Satan as the great adversary to Jehovah; the Christian idea of the Devil was derived from Judaism. Zoroaster’s attitude of devotion to truth and hatred of dishonesty led directly to the science and philosophy of Greece.

Book of Deuteronomy (650 B.C.) The thoughts of the Hebrew prophets were re-echoed at the end of the seventh century. Love as a motivating factor in religion affects the tone of the law in this book. In addition the basic question is raised as to the criterion for distinguishing the true from the false prophet. Answers to this waver between personal authority, (the name of Jehovah) and the empirical test, (the course of history).

Zephaniah and Habakkuk Continued the same philosophy as that of Isaiah I. (see above).

Jeremiah (650-585 B.C.) [Anathoth, Jerusalem]. In an independent break away speech Jeremiah, at the end of the captivity period announced, It shall no more be said that the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge; hereafter each man shall be responsible only for his own sin, and the soul that sins shall die. Which remark was a pretty safe bet, since we all die. In spite of Jeremiah’s efforts for good, the treatment he received forced him to raise the question of why the righteous, suffer.

* Episodic: Intermittent: comes in fits and starts.

CHAPTER 2

BEFORE SOCRATES

It was about 600 B.C. before we could recognise in the western world, any form in the technical sense of anything that resembled philosophy. The first people to learn how to think abstractly and with a measure of exactitude were the Greeks. Aiming at universal validity, they were also the first to use generalisations successfully. As a direct result they gave the western world the science of mathematics which provided the basis for other sciences and the logical analysis which is the hallmark of intellectual disciplines of western civilisations. Other important contributions have been in the field of analytical and systematic laundering of the fundamental questions from earlier civilisations. The first problem emphasised was that of ontology, or the nature of the basic stuff of which all things are made. Answers to this problem stretched from