(This image comes to us from
the Perseus
vase collection.)
1. The fact that someone is older than you or comes from an
older country than you do does not necessarily imply that he or she is
right.
It doesn't imply that he
or she is wrong, either. The point is that even people who come from
places that are known for a certain type of scholarship may not be good
at that kind of scholarship. Even some of those people who are good at
it can make mistakes.
a. Corollary.
The fact that someone is older than your instructor and from an older country doesn't
by itself imply that this someone is right, and doesn't imply that he
or she is wrong.
b. Corollary.
If you want to know what an ancient philosopher said, read what he or
she wrote.
2. Papyrus was expensive.
Never assume that
something in an ancient text is meant to be extraneous, or
"window-dressing", or not important. If it's on the page, the author
thought it was worth conveying. If Plato had thought that the only
thing worth considering was the statements he puts in the mouth of the
Socrates character, he would not have included all of that
scene-setting and all of those speeches by other characters. If
Parmenides had thought that the only important things to convey were
the statements his goddess character makes, he would not have included
the extremely detailed account of the journey. If Aristotle (or his
students) had thought that all that stuff he puts into the first Book
of many of his works (that business about his predecessors, those
discussions about "science" and whether there can be kowledge about
something, that worrying over whether or in what sense the things
studied in a particular field exist) was irrelevant or extraneous,
there is a very good chance that these things would have been left out.
a.
Corollary.
Since when are you smarter than {Aristotle, Plato, any pre-Socratic}?
That is, don't assume that
you know better than the author what in the text is important. People
who look only at the parts of a text that they feel comfortable with
are like people who take apart your car, then put it back together and
say, "It's fixed--what do you want me to do with all these parts that
were left over?"
3. If it's clear, it isn't Aristotle.
4. Aliens are watching "I Love Lucy".
Radio and television
signals routinely escape the Earth's atmosphere and travel on into
space. If modern physics is correct, these waves should in principle be
able to travel on indefinitely, unless of course something blocks their
paths. Thus if there are alien life forms that have the sensory
apparatus and technology to pick up such waves, and if these beings are
situated in the paths of unobstructed transmissions, the aliens should
be able to detect our radio and television signals. If they are very
far from Earth, it may take years for the signals to reach them. Now,
since it first appeared in the early 1950's, "I Love Lucy" has never
been off the air: there has always been at least one station
broadcasting it, and usually quite a few. It has been dubbed into many
languages, and broadcast from stations in the Americas, Europe, Asia,
Africa, and Australia. Therefore, statistically speaking, there is a
higher probability that a given television signal broadcast during the
past fifty years is of an episode of "I Love Lucy" than that it is of a
program from almost (or maybe not almost, but actually) any other
single series.
Aliens whose only or main
source of information about Earth is "I Love Lucy" would be likely to
form a conception of life on Earth that is somewhat incomplete and
distorted, though not necessarily entirely inaccurate. For example, if
they developed an understanding of the English language, they might
conclude that the chief goal of humans is "appearing at the Club"; that
there is a 600 block of East 68th St. in Manhattan, N.Y.; and that the
primary (and essentially benign) motivations for human action are
revenge, envy, desire for attention, and desire to meet film stars.
(Somewhat incomplete, but not entirely inaccurate.)
The point is that we must
ask whether our view of ancient Greek ideas may also be based on very
incomplete information, especially if we limit ourselves to only one
kind of evidence (only philosophical writers, or only historical
writers, or only myths and vase-paintings, etc.)
5. A lack of cars, electricity, or running
water does not necessarily imply a lack of intelligence, learning,
creativity, or sophistication in a society or in a person.
- The fact that someone lived a long time ago or in a place
whose level or type of technological development is different from our
own does not imply that the person was stupid, simple, intellectually
or spiritually unsophisticated, or unable to appreciate irony or ideas
that appear to us to be complex. In fact, a relative lack of emphasis
on technological development can reflect a correspondingly greater
emphasis on other kinds of development.