The First Flowerings of Philosophy

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

William Shakespeare – The Tempest

What is philosophy? You might have heard people say, “Never be late, that’s my philosophy.” That’s a generous term for such a banal statement. There must be something more to it. Literally, th term means love of wisdom from the Ancient Greek φίλος (philos: ‘love’) and σοφία (sophia: ‘wisdom’). Is that it? What makes philosophy different from what came before it? Does every culture inevitably come up with philosophy or is it a phenomenon that arose in particular contexts?

As far as we know, only three civilizations have come up with philosophical traditions. What we now call philosophy and science (what used to be called natural philosophy) are an amalgamation of ideas and concepts that came from these three traditions: Ancient Greeks, Indians and Chinese. What differentiated these philosophies from what came before it? Let’s explore again our criteria for mythopoeic thought and see where philosophy differed:

1. Myths are stories about persons whereas philosophy tries to explain natural phenomena in natural terms: Anaximander of Miletus (c.550 BCE) suggested that the earth was a finite body with the sky above and below it. This is an extreme leap of imagination given that most people thought of the earth an expanse with water above and below (Genesis 1:7). Instead of making the sun and moon into gods, Anaxagoras (c. 500 – c. 428 BCE) stated that the sun was made of molten metal, the moon was a rock and the stars were hot stones.
2. Myths have a multiplicity of explanations for the same phenomenon while philosophy tries to create systematic and internally consistent explanations: Within each philosophical tradition there is an attempt to create systematic and logical ideas that do not contain contradictions. In fact, internal contradictions were one of the main criteria for rejecting a postulate.
3. Myths are conservative to change whereas philosophy is all about new ideas developing all the time: Within the first century of Greek philosophy Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Pythagoras, and Heraclitus had come up with different explanations about the origins of the universe. Numerous schools of though (each challenging the other) had emerged in India within the lifetime of the Buddha (let along before and after him). During the late Spring and Autumn period of Ancient China, there were the 諸子百家 zhūzǐ bǎijiā or hundred schools of thought which predated Confucianism and Mohism.
4. Myths are self-justifying while philosophy looks to give rational augments: While early philosophical texts such as Parmenides of Elea ‘s the Way of Truth, the Analects of Confucius and the Māṇḍūkya Upanishad are aphoristic statements, later philosophical texts are characterised by substantial time spent reasoning through arguments to reach a conclusion. The idea is you don’t believe something because of the reputation or status of the speaker (or writer) but because of the reasons and evidence they present.
5. Myths are morally ambivalent whereas philosophy spends a lot of time trying to define what is good: The Greek, Indian and Chinese philosophers spend a lot of time criticizing immorality in their mythology. Socrates refuses to believe that the shameful acts ascribed to the Greek gods and spends considerable time on defining The Good and how to live the good life. Indian philosophy is filled with discussion on what is dharma. Chinese philosophers discuss endlessly about 仁ren, ‘humaneness’ and 义/義yi, righteousness.

As we can see from the five characteristics that changed with philosophy, there appears to be an underlying thread that connects different philosophy. This would be the application of critical thinking to pre-existing ideas. Critical thinking could be defined as the application of rational, sceptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation in order to make judgements about the world. This involves the analysis of facts, evidence, observations, and arguments. Critical thinking requires effective communication and systematic ways of thinking as well as a commitment to overcome biases.

To say that philosophy only arose among the Greeks, the Indians and the Chinese, is not to state that other cultures and communities are inferior to them in some way. Rather, it is to realize that critical thinking and philosophy are often the products of specific sociocultural influences that need to be nurtured. One reason these civilizations came up with such ideas is that they were multicultural and open to new ideas. These civilizations traded outside of their immediate cultural spheres and interacted with other cultures and communities. Greek traders settled in Asia Minor (what is now Türkiye) and along the Northern Coast of Africa. They talked to Egyptians and Ethiopians (a general term for the people of sub-Saharan Africa) the latter being referred to as the most pious people on earth by Homer. Greeks and Indians exchanged ideas on mathematics for centuries. Mathematical treatises were translated from Ancient Greek into Sanskrit. Indians travelled to China and vice versa. They not only talked to each other, but appreciated each other’s contribution as seen here:

This exchange of ideas and appreciations for concepts from other cultures was the driving force for philosophy to emerge. Whenever such openness to other cultures and ideas disappeared, then there was stagnation. In the same vein, just because a clear philosophical tradition is absent to begin with in some cultures does not mean that there was no critical thinking or attempts to go beyond tradition. We can point to the wisdom literature in the Bible as an example of such an attempt. But they were always subsumed by traditional conservatism against challenging the status quo. We also see rational discussion as a driving force for Indigenous communities in north America. Early missionaries were surprised at how adept Indigenous leaders were in challenging the arguments they offered in favour of converting to Christianity (along with the subsequent acceptance of European religious authority). Reports suggest that Indigenous leaders were able to discuss these issues rationally as they themselves had gained their leadership positions by demonstrating such abilities within their communities (Graeber & Wengrow, 2023). The only reason we didn’t see such skills develop into philosophy is because there wasn’t an attempt to codify ideas into schools of thought or an impetus to challenge pre-existing ways of thinking.