The Eastern, Middle Eastern and Western Golden Ages
This class focuses on modern European philosophy, the thought of European philosophers since 1600 CE up until the present day. Before we given an overview of this period, paying particular attention to the split in the late 1800s between the Analytic and Continental traditions, we will consider the often ignored golden ages of the world that occurred before the European Enlightenment of the 1600s. Before the European golden ages of the Renaissance of the 1400s and Enlightenment of the 1600s, many technological, medical and mathematical advancements were made in two previous golden ages, those of China and Islam.
During the Tang and Song Dynasties of China, between 600 and 1200 CE, many of the basic machines and techniques were developed that would continue to serve as the base of later golden ages in Islamic and Christian lands. The Four Great Inventions, as they are known in Chinese and European scholarship, are paper, printing, the magnetic compass, and gunpowder. In 1620, the famed European scientist Sir Francis Bacon wrote that three of these, gunpowder, the magnetic compass and printing, were the most significant advancements of humankind in all of history, separating ancient and modern times. He was unaware that all three were Chinese, originating in the Tang and Song Dynasties. In this sense, Chinese mechanics and their later evolution separates modern European culture, as well as our shared global culture, from the ancient cultures of Greece, Rome, Egypt and Persia.
Much later in the 1800s, Karl Marx wrote that these same three inventions brought about capitalism and the bourgeoisie, the middle class that is needed to regulate the poor in the interests of the rich. Scholars in Communist China agree with Marx’s theory, while noting that these Great Four were merely the most significant inventions that passed from East to West, not the most sophisticated innovations of the Tang and Song.
Gunpowder was invented by Daoist alchemists, who sometimes blew themselves up in caves as they searched for elixirs of immortality. This is similar to Isaac Newton, who devoted much of his time to alchemy and the transmutation of lead into gold, remembered instead for his theory of gravity. While Islamic and European alchemists sought to transmute lead into gold, the primary purpose of Chinese alchemy was transmutation of the body and mind. While alchemy is now discredited, it was not a useless venture. As with most discarded models and pursuits, much is discovered as a byproduct before problems become significant enough to require a paradigm shift, a term coined by Thomas Kuhn, a philosopher of science we will cover in this course.
Paper took many forms, such as wall paper, toilet paper (which was originally only for the rich), and tea bags. With paper and block printing came paper currency, which we still use today. Block printing, using movable and set type of wood or metal, was used also for textiles and playing cards. Materials such as paper, wood and metal were made fireproof and waterproof with lacquers.
In addition to these inventions, there were many other Chinese mechanical innovations that had a profound significance on life and engineering. Cast iron, developed in China, made its way to medieval European blacksmiths. Many of the basic components of mechanics, such as gear systems, the belt drive, the chain drive, and the spring allowed for the development of countless devices useful in all aspects of life, as they still do today. The spinning wheel, waterwheel, the windmill and the mechanical clock all passed from China into Islamic lands, and from there into Europe forming the basis of mechanical advancements of Leonardo da Vinci and other innovators of the Italian Renaissance. Automata, mechanical people primarily used for entertainment, followed this same route, such as the figures that dance attached to clocks which first entertained sultans before delighting the German public and much later Disneyland tourists in clock towers.
During the Islamic Golden Age, between roughly 700 and 1400 CE, innovations from China and India were incorporated and further developed. Most significant of these was the development of algebra by Islamic mathematicians out of earlier Indian mathematics, which included the Indian-Arabic numerals we still use today as well as the concepts of zero and the resolvable variable. Algebra led to Calculus in Europe, invented by both Newton and Leibniz, one of the European philosophers we will cover next week. We still use Leibniz’s notation in Calculus today because Newton tried to name everything after himself, a plan that did not prove popular. Several of the great philosophers of the Islamic Golden Age were also scientists, doctors, logicians and mathematicians.
Avicenna or Ibn Sina (980-1037) was the foremost doctor of his time. As a boy he learned Indian Arithmetic from an Indian grocer in his neighborhood. His Canon of Medicine was used as a textbook for Europe in translation until the 1700s. His medicine was based on experimentation and clinical trials, fusing Persian, Greek, Indian and other texts together. He is credited with formulating the nature of infectious disease, hypothesizing that microscopic organisms are the cause, randomized control trials, major concepts of psychiatry including hallucinations, insomnia, mania, dementia, and epilepsy. He was the first to correctly show the workings of the eye, arguing that light comes into the eye rather than emanates out of it, otherwise we would be able to see in the dark. He was one of the key authors for understanding Aristotle and scientific investigation, even as he argued against Aristotle.
Avicenna’s floating man thought experiment should be important for a modern European philosophy class because it is strikingly similar to Descartes’ deceiving demon, one of the first major concepts of modern European philosophy. Avicenna, who worked with anesthetics in publicly funded hospitals, asks us to imagine that we are slowly unable to feel our feet, then body, then sight and sensation, then memory and imagination. What is left, the last and most essential thing that is ourselves? Avicenna replies that it is consciousness. With that, we still can be said to exist, aware even if we cannot be self-aware by imagining or conceiving of ourselves as a concept. Descartes, who we will study next week, has us imagine that there is a demon who is deceiving us and creating the world as an illusion, but the one thing the demon can not trick us about is that we are. Descartes concludes with his famous, “I think, therefore I am”, just as Avicenna concluded that we are because we are conscious.
Clearly in China and the Middle East life had become more complex, with increasingly sophisticated technology and with this a relatively greater understanding of the human body and mind. Between 1400 and 1700 CE, as the golden ages of China and Islam drew to a close, Europe surpassed previous cultures in wealth through trade and power through technology. By 1700, more gold and silver were passing West rather than East along the Silk Road for the first time in history.
Unfortunately, as also happened in China, Islam and many other societies as they rise and become dominant, Europeans transitioned from saying that they could be just as civilized as others during the Renaissance of the 1400s to saying that no one was civilized like they were during the Enlightenment of the 1600s and 1700s. The central message became that like the ancient Greeks, modern Europeans are uniquely free and thus free to reason. The balancing of freedom and authority is a complex problem that is not distinctly European, nor is wisdom a distinctly European value. Modern psychology experiments do confirm that when we are successful, we are more likely to consider our own opinions objective and those who disagree to be biased, while those who are not successful are more likely to consider their own opinions biased and
While this was originally referred to as Christendom, and then later “the European race”, including the ancient Greeks and Romans in an ethnic group they would have wanted no part of, it is now referred to as “the West“, particularly after the Holocaust made any mention of “the European race” unpleasant. Unfortunately, this arrogant distinction was not itself reasonable, and certainly not wise.
NEO-PLATONISM AND MEDIEVAL EUROPEAN PHILOSOPHY
First, Neoplatonists would have called themselves ‘Platonists’. ‘Neo’ was adopted by modern scholarship to describe the later tradition following Plato’s thought just like the Neoconfucianism of China. The tradition comes from Alexandria, Egypt where Greek Platonists were reading the Timaeus and participating in cosmological, religious and philosophical debates amongst the many cultures of the trade port, including Egyptians, Nubians, Gnostic Christians, Coptic Christians, Jews, Indians, Turks and Persians. While the first Neoplatonists were polytheists, Neoplatonism became the dominant philosophy of the three Abrahamic religious traditions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, joined later in the Islamic golden age by Aristotelianism.
Two texts that were central to Platonism were the Chaldean Oracles, which were supposed to be the secret teachings of Zarathustra from Persia, and the Hermetic Corpus, the secret teachings of Hermes Trismegistus, identified with Thoth, the Egyptian god of knowledge. We know today that these two texts were written by Greek authors who were using Plato to try to back-form the wisdom of Persia and Egypt that the ancient Greeks themselves praised, but at the time they were believed to be authentic and the critical sources that Plato drew from to convey the wisdom and universal philosophy of all cultures.
Most famous Hermetic text is the Emerald Tablet, a short set of aphorisms. The line most quoted (as it is in the movie I Heart Huckabees) is, “The world is a sphere in which the circumference is everywhere and the center is nowhere. The Chaldean Oracles include many beautiful aphorisms, including:
Explore the river of the soul, to rise to the order from which you descended.
When you see a formless fire, flashing through the depth of the world, hear the voice of fire.
The intelligible draws open the flower of the mind.
Central teachings of this tradition of Platonism include the Fall and the Return, that the Soul must return to the One, the All, which it must do by way of lesser gods or angels and demons. In the Abrahamic tradition, this became identified with the fall of Adam and Eve from the primordial Garden of Eden. The cosmos, humanity, and the individual have to fall from grace and the whole such that things can be redeemed and made whole again. The system is a physics of the cosmos and psychology of the soul, an angelology and demonology classifying forces of the cosmos and the mind. The macrocosm is the cosmos, the microcosm the human scaled world. The small resembles the large. Opening up the mind and acquiring knowledge and wisdom is returning to the cosmos that produced you.
There are two motions of mind to develop, kataphania and apophania, positing and negating, affirming and doubting. To get to the One, you must move dialectically, back and forth, to open up, understand, and become the whole. Humans occupy a unique place in the cosmos. They have the ability to subsume all the motions of things low and high, thus are most like the all-motion of the One. Humans are the One fallen away from itself, journeying back to itself. Time and space are the eternal moment, which in human fallen perspective is fragmented.
All the main thinkers of Medieval Europe were Neoplatonists for quite a while, including Augustine, Dionysius, Boethius, Eriugena, Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, Ficino, Pico di Mirandola, Bruno, Michelangelo, Botticelli, as well as scientists like Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler.
Augustine (354 – 430 CE) brought it into Christianity from earlier polytheist authors. One of the most important authors, philosophers and church fathers of Catholicism, he was North African. He made the gods of the polytheistic Platonists angels (each with a job in the cosmos) and talked about how light into the mind creates visions/theophanies/ideas of the cosmos and its order.
Pseudo-Dionysius (about 500 CE), or ‘Fake Dennis’, was a Syrian Christian who read Augustine and other authors and was big into negative theology and kataphania. He was thought to have been the original Dionysius, the first Catholic Bishop of Athens, but modern scholarship has shown that he could not have been based on his texts. He argued that the journey to the One was essentially one of unknowing and the One was the great Unknown, above all qualities or being.
Eriugena (815 – 877 CE) was Irish and was called to the French court of Charles the Bald to translate Plato and Dionysius. He merged the work of Augustine and Dionysius, working them together with many other authors, to create a dialectical system of kataphania and apophania. The first European Christian Platonist, Hegel wrote about him in his History of Philosophy, “With him, true philosophy first begins”, tracing the evolution of philosophy up to himself. I wrote about the similarities of Eriugena and Hegel for my master’s thesis. Eriugena was one of the only people in Europe who could read Greek at the time, and so he was protected in the court of Charles from the Pope, who charged him with heresy and pantheism, in exchange for translating and commentary. Augustine was cannon for the Church, and Eriugena argued that the ecstatic unknowing of Dionysius and Augustine are two sides of the same coin.
Eriugena saw the One as Hyper-Ousia, Super-Being, the sum of all being and non-being, the source of both but neither of the two at the same time. He took the radical unknown One of Dionysius and made it the unknown source of both known and unknown in all levels of the cosmos. For Eriugena, psychology is physics, as we co-create our world as a product of our vision and the One’s vision. The One is unknown to itself and fully known to itself above human divisions of judgement, and it shares both of these with human beings, the special mediators of the cosmos. Like in Sufism, Humans are unique in potentially being God, encompassing the lowest and highest of all orders (which Eriugena refers to as the worm and the angel). He also, like some Muslim philosophers, argued that authority comes from reason, not the other way around.
Aquinas (1225-1274) lived just after Averroes, about 200 years after Avicenna. Augustine was the bringer of Plato into Christian Europe, and Aquinas was the bringer of Aristotle into medieval Europe thanks to his reading of Islamic authors. He studied at the University of Naples until he was 16. Because he was brilliant, the Dominican order offered to support his scholarship. He became a Dominican, then was kidnapped by his parents who wanted him to come back home. According to the legend his brother’s brought him a prostitute, but he drove her away. Then the Pope intervened, and he went back to being a Dominican.
Aquinas was primarily influenced by Ghazali and Averroes, both of whom were critics of Avicenna. Three years after his death, Aquinas was excommunicated for heresy due to following Averroes’ interpretation of Aristotle’s works, but later the Church reversed its position. This is after Aquinas defended the Church again and again as the only source of true authority and knowledge. 50 years after his death, he was pronounced a Saint. Later, at the First Vatican Council (1868) he was pronounced the central thinker of the Catholic Church.
As an Averroist Aristotelian, Aquinas believed that universals are real beings that are even more real than physical objects. His argument for the existence of God shows this. He argues that all things are dependent on, possible because of, and less than a highest thing, which must be God, Being itself. Thus, like later European thought, Being is essence of essences which we will see in Hegel later. Descartes follows Aquinas’ argument for a highest, most necessary being.
William of Ockham (1288-1348), unlike Aquinas, followed Avicenna and argued that only objects and individuals are real, all else is mental construction and conception. He is sometimes called the first modern thinker because of this, but Avicenna put this idea forward centuries earlier. His nominalism says that concepts are just our names for things, our labels. Just like Avicenna, he argued that only Being (God) is not contingent, not dependent on other things. Ockham is also known for ‘Ockham’s razor’: the simplest explanation is often correct. This fits with his Avicenna-like position: if how a thing works is a conception in our heads, then the simplest conception will often be the most useful.
Saint Francis of Assisi (1181 – 1226 CE), later San Francisco in Spanish, wanted to join the crusades to help convert Muslims to Christianity, but after spending time at a Sultan’s Court, came back with a very Sufi-like vision of the brotherhood of all of humanity: All religion is one brotherhood in God, give all to the poor, and contemplate all through radical love. At the end of time, he said, we will be standing side by side, hand in hand with sister death and brother fire. Some in Francis’ day thought that he was the second coming of Jesus, though the Catholic Church squashed this heretical movement but compromised with it by making Francis a saint.
Nicholas of Cusa (1401 – 1464 CE) was a philosopher and mystic who read and supported Eriugena. He argued that the known and unknown, the finite and infinite, dwell together in the forms of this world, using the example of a circle which is endless right in front of our eyes. He also, like Jesus, used the example of a mustard seed. Imagine a mustard seed, and that we have unlimited water, earth, space and light to give it to grow. One seed is potentially infinite, with no limit to its growth through the number of new plants and seeds that it spawns. Cusa argues that not only is the physical seed infinite, but so is the seed in our minds, in our imagination, showing that the mind is potentially infinite as well.
The Renaissance (1400s -1500s CE)
‘Italy’ was not something that Renaissance people would have known, and neither would they have heard the French word ‘Renaissance’, given to the period hundreds of years later by a French historian. Florence, the city state, was their nation. ‘Italy’ had yet to be unified and titled such. The central power of the Pope had withered, and city state trade created competing cultures. The Florentines imported Islamic merchandise, including the texts of Greek thinkers such as the Neo-Platonists and Aristotelians. The Vatican Library catalog shows how books and Greeks had yet to be popular in 1400 but quickly caught on. In 1443, the library, the most impressive and extensive in Europe, had 2 Greek books out of 340 books total. In 1455, twelve years later, there were 400 Greek books out of 1200 total. In 1484, forty years later, there were 1000 Greek books out of 3650 total. In forty years the library grew ten times in size.
Cosimo de Medici founded the Platonic Academy of Florence in 1462. It was not a building but a regular meeting of scholars and Marsilio Ficino soon rose through the ranks to lead it, with Pico della Mirandola as student. Cosimo de Medici, when he knew he was dying, ordered Ficino to put aside translating Plato’s complete works and finish translating the Corpus Hermetica, the supposed secret wisdom of Egypt passed to the Hebrews and Greeks. Plato was thought to be a follower of Hermes and Zarathustra, and this wisdom was one and the same as the teachings of Jesus. Ficino translated ‘Maat’ as Logos, which is a bit of a confusion between balance and order, but it is similar to the Dao in China as the principle of balance and order of the cosmos.
Ficino argued there was one unbroken tradition of wisdom which included the Egyptians, Persians, the Brahmans of India (who he doesn’t go into detail on) and the Greeks. Ficino gave Europe the first Latin translations of Plato’s works, many derived from Arabic sources. Ficino thought that Zarathustra was the first prophet of the one true philosophy, followed by Hermes from Egypt, then Moses, then Plato, then Jesus.
Pico di Mirandola, Ficino’s student, thought it was first Hermes of Egypt, then Zarathustra, then Abraham, then Plato, placing the Egyptians first, not the Persians. These remained the debated opinions for centuries. Bruno and Masons follow Pico in upholding Egypt as fountain of all the world’s wisdom. Ficino repeatedly uses the Zoroastrian oracles to back up his points, and continuously mentions the three Persian Magi visiting Jesus as infant in the Bible. Ficino writes that Plato had a third eye, which contemplated the union of being and nonbeing. Pico was very big on Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism, saying it was based on earlier Egyptian sources.
Modern European Philosophy
Modern European philosophy started as a single tradition but then split into two separate branches in the 1800s, the Continental tradition of Germany and France (also Italy, Spain and Russia) and the Analytic tradition of Britain and America (also Canada, Australia and South Africa, the English speaking countries of the former British Empire). The first several European philosophers we will study, those between and including Descartes and Kant, are shared by both traditions. Modern European philosophy taught at American universities typically covers Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley and Kant with few additions. While courses in Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger are offered as electives, the core classes focusing on mind, language, logic and ethics are taught from an Analytic perspective primarily using works by American Analytic philosophers.
The Analytic tradition continues after Kant to study the first Analytic philosophers: Frege from Germany, Russell from Britain, and Wittgenstein from Austria. After the initial German and Austrian, most Analytic philosophy comes from the English speaking countries of Britain and America. The Continental tradition largely consists of German and French thought, and continues after Kant to study the German philosophers Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and then several French philosophers influenced by these earlier Germans. Why the split between the two camps? Two strands of thought went in opposite directions from Germany, the Continental tradition embracing Hegel, the Analytic tradition rejecting him and Continental thinkers influenced by him. There are both political and philosophical reasons for this.
While Hegel became a conservative in later life, his thinking spelled out the path of radical change and revolution. As mentioned, Hegel saw history as a battle between right and left, between understanding and reason, and between dogmatism and skepticism, a major influence on Karl Marx, coauthor of the Communist Manifesto and the founding philosopher of Communism and Marxism. Marx argued that society was in need of radical revolution and change, and that just as the French Revolution had removed the aristocrats and clergy from power, a communist revolution would remove the capitalists from the top of society such that everything is democratically shared by the people. Britain and America, the wealthiest lands on the planet, were somewhat uncomfortable teaching Hegel and Marx, who were both studied centrally in communist countries. Several scholars have noted that it was only with the fall of the USSR in 1991 that Americans began to study Hegel as they had before the Cold War.
It has been said that Continental philosophy wants to be an art, while Analytic philosophy wants to be a science. German and French thought likes the profound and dramatic, British and American thought likes the dry and tidy. Too often, this means that Continental thought is confusing and difficult, but deep and meaningful, whereas Analytic thought is clear and precise, but shallow and uninspiring. Let us first look at the Analytic and then the Continental tradition to further understand this difference.
The term ‘Analytic’ was first used by American philosophy professors in the 1930s, and then increasingly by Americans and British professors after WWII to distinguish themselves from the Germans and French who followed Hegel. Analytic philosophy focuses on logic and language, prioritizing the objective and impersonal. Frege revolutionized logic, using mathematical structures to describe logical reasoning.
Russell, who saw in Frege’s logic a method for clarifying and solving philosophical problems, argued that the unclear and unnecessary can be stripped away, revealing the clear and objective truth, much as math strips away the qualities of things to analyze them in terms of pure quantity. Russell followed Kant, the last link between the two traditions, who wanted to legitimize philosophy as a distinct natural science using logic such that the subjective could be stripped away and the objective truth established. Unlike Hegel, who argued that subjectivity and objectivity are two sides of the same coin, Russell maintained Kant’s exclusive distinction between objectivity and subjectivity. For Russell and the Analytic philosophers who followed him, mixing subjectivity and objectivity confuses things that should be kept distinct. Writing against Hegelians by name, Russell identified two schools of philosophy, ‘Continental’ and ‘British’. While Hegel argued that reality is an evolving historical situation of oppositional perspectives and contradictions, Russell argued that mathematics and science work through eliminating contradictions to discard the subjective and historical leaving only the objective and universal, and that philosophy should do the same.
Wittgenstein followed Russell in his early period, inventing the truth table method we use today in logic, though in his later work Wittgenstein distanced himself from Russell and believed that objective truth “in the world” and subjective truth “in the head” could not be exclusively divided. Logical Positivists such as the Vienna Circle picked up and developed Wittgenstein’s earlier work, hoping that philosophical problems would disappear if logically analyzed. This continues to be the dominant position of British and American Analytic thought today, known as Positivism, though British Utilitarianism and American Pragmatism survive in the wings as offshoots that still value science and its methods but are skeptical of claims to absolute distinctions and objective truth. Both argue that concepts and descriptions are true insofar as they are useful and practical, and that there is no objective or exclusive truth beyond this.
“Continental” thinkers have only recently taken up the term to distinguish themselves from the Analytic camp, whom they don’t often admire. In America, there was a surge of interest in Continental thought in the political upheaval of the 1960s, and courses on Phenomenology, Existentialism, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, and Postmodernism became popular amongst some professors and students. We will be studying each of these along with Positivism and Pragmatism in the second half of the course.
While Analytic thought, like Russell, sought to strip away the subjective and historical, revealing the objective and universal, Continental thought focused on the union of the perspective and personal together with the social and historical. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, the two forerunners of Existentialism, argued that philosophy was always a personal confession, an experience of personal struggle. They agreed with Hegel that reality is composed of perspectives that are in agreement and disagreement, but they rejected Hegel’s claim to have revealed the objective and total unity of the full set of subjective perspectives, arguing that it is valuable to pursue truth but that claims to total objectivity are naive and foolish.
Rather than strip away the subjective as Russell advocated, or claim to have built objectivity out of the sum of subjectivities as Hegel had, Existentialists argued that the problem of subjectivity and objectivity was always open ended, never resolved, and that it was therefore the responsibility of individuals to discover truth for themselves. If individual, social and historical context is stripped away in the interests of simplicity and mathematical precision, the complex meaning of the problem likewise disappears, which does little to solve the problem as we live it. Philosophy should thus be meaningful like art, which has no simple answer, rather than attempt to legitimate itself as a science by focusing on accuracy and exclusion.
Which is stronger or more accurate, describing things simply, or complexly? Should we try for the clarity of black and white, or the complexity of shades of grey? If you want certainty and exclusivity, when there will be terrible consequences unless barriers are held in place, simple, absolute black and white is best. If you want complexity and inclusivity, when experimentation and alternatives are safe and permissible, complex, relative shades of grey is best.
Should philosophy close more than it opens, or open more than it closes? On the Analytic side, reason should bring us to secure understandings, such that we have a foundational basis for making important decisions. On the Continental side, much of what is most important to us, such as social struggle or our attitude towards death, are murky and not exclusively black and white, which is what makes them so dynamic, dramatic, emotional, and meaningful. Clarity can be relative. Ambiguity and plurality are as much our reality as clarity and singularity. There is a balance to be struck between clarity and depth.
Analytic philosophy has been accused of being socially impotent. Removing the situation and saying meaning is static and universal does not allow for social difference and change. Hence, feminists and critics of racism often turn to Continental thought. Questions of social identity, repression, ideology all are declared “meaningless” by the Analytical positivists, even though many people, particularly intellectuals, find these quite meaningful. Thus, at UC Berkeley, Continental thought thrives in the English and Rhetoric departments, particularly the latest French thought of Barthes, Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida, while these are almost invisible in the Philosophy department. This is why Judith Butler, the most famous philosopher in Berkeley and leading feminist theorist, teaches in the Rhetoric department and not in the philosophy department.
Some Continental thinkers have admired Analytic thought for its clarity, as much of Continental thought is overly complex and verbose, impossible for the average person to read. While Nietzsche is clear in his writing while asking deep questions, Hegel, Heidegger and later French thinkers can confound even experts. Monique Schneider, a French philosopher and psychoanalyst who admires the clarity of Analytic thinkers, said that she has attended Lacanian psychoanalysis lectures which overjoyed students would leave saying, “It was wonderful…I couldn’t understand a thing”, assuming that the incomprehensible must be profound. On an episode of the Simpsons, Homer watches a David Lynch movie, and says, “It’s brilliant…I have no idea what it means”. While surrealists such as Lynch enjoy intentional obfuscation, shunning simple narratives and morals,
Given the divide between the two traditions, what should we do as we study the history of thought? Rather than swear cultural allegiance to any particular side, we should each examine every side that we can and freely develop our own thinking as we like. Philosophy is an exercise, a training of the mind. Whether or not we close out answers or open up questions, we are training ourselves to think creatively and critically. This is why we study a great range of thought, with all of its disagreements and oppositions, as we learn just as much from a philosophy to which we are opposed as we do to a philosophy with which we agree.