On The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius

I wrote this paper about a month ago for Philosophy class. Please read the previous post, it is superior to this one, but this one is postworthy.

Marcus Aurelius (c.121-180) was one of the greatest Roman Emperors of all time, and one of the most influential stoics too. However, his works have been highly criticized, and his popularity has been inconsistent. Aurelius, in one of the most striking ironies in history, was the most powerful man in the world, but still wrote under a stoic doctrine, and his Meditations are very humble. Yet Aurelius’s philosophy is somewhat impractical, and his merit as a philosopher is highly in question.

A main critic of stoicism was Boethius. He, writing in the fifth century, claimed that the stoics, and Aurelius, were not true philosophers, only Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were. While I am not that extreme, I am greatly skeptical of his merit as a philosopher. Aurelius’s philosophy is consistent, but its application is difficult to achieve. The stoic doctrine is one that is very in tune with nature and in some respects similar to Buddhist and Taoist teachings. Yet he is disturbingly predictable, and history does not tell us exactly to what extent he preached. Granted, the Roman ideal was very different from the Stoic, but if even the man who wrote on stoicism could not be stoic, how could anyone else hope to fulfill these sentiments?

To elaborate on the claim that he was elementary, predictable, and idealist in his philosophy, one only needs to look at Meditation 6.51 (book six, meditation fifty-one). In this, he references the nature of three types of men: ambitious, pleasure-desiring, and understanding. What he does is makes the man of understanding the one that the reader hopes to be. What however, we do not so much learn something from Marcus, and many of his aphorisms are poetic (he did write in the scholarly Greek that the educated tended to write in), but in terms of philosophy, poetic language is a bonus, but it is not essential to the text.

Another place where Marcus’s mediocrity is evinced is meditation 4.44. In this meditation, he is merely commenting on the on the fact that events happen. At the meditation’s core, it is a blatant observation, dressed up in some language, with some respected added to it by the hand that wrote it. Nothing is being shown by this meditation, and when we attempt to go deeper into its meaning confusion arises out of its simplicity. To call this meditation the work of a bona fide philosopher is slander and degrading to all those who came before and after him. This is not to say that Aurelius was not a great man, and a moral individual, but his philosophy is far from impressive and the overall doctrine of stoicism is, only applicable in extreme situations. For example, if one becomes a war criminal, or a prisoner of war (POW), stoicism may help one keep his sanity. Stoicism deals with the present in great depth, and enforces the doctrine of being oneself through selflessness. However, of the stoics, Aurelius is only the most famous, but not the most influential (Epictetus, Zeno, as well as others were more influential; Aurelius is more popular because of his position as Roman Emperor, “Imperator.”)

A third example of Aurelius’s lack of insight is meditation 2.4. For this Marcus has chosen to discuss the idea of procrastination, and heavily criticizes those who do not make the best use of their time. This may be inspirational, but only to the man who has not used his time well, and again, nothing is shown by this. Aurelius has been called timeless because he only discussed the fundamental principles of humanity. While this is impressive in comparison to the other Roman emperors, the great philosophers have progressed well between this state of thought. The fact that so many have been able to relate to him throughout history is because he appeals to simple tendencies of man, and while he appeals to the general reading community, he is not extremely respected in the philosophical community, hence he is not considered one of the greatest philosophers.

From a personal standpoint, I was greatly disappointed by The Meditations. I read them my sophomore year of high school (I am currently a junior) and was not very impressed. By the third book, I was able to write my own meditation the same caliber of Aurelius’s, and I must say that little was learned from those. Around that time I had also read Aristotle’s Poetics and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, two of my least favourite philosophical works, and The Meditations rank lower than those two (since them I have moved onto Nietzsche and Russell, and true philosophical genius, although Aristotle has since redeemed himself.) My main criticism of Aurelius is his lack of insight. I have tried to consider the time period, and the fact that the classical definition of “philosophy” is different from the modern definition. However, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus and Anaxagoras came centuries before him and were much more insightful.

What I have come to conclude after studying Aurelius in depth is that he is not a great philosopher, and if he indeed is a philosopher is in question. Granted, his body of work is minimal, but his profession (most powerful man in the world!) superceded his philosophical development. The main reason why I wonder of Aurelius is a philosopher has to do with Plato. In his Republic, Philosophers were chosen to rule the state. Had this Aurelius been involved in this type of government, I do not know if he would have been considered worthy of the title of “philosopher.” Finally, philosophers are thinkers, and Aurelius was a “doer”, so by little fault of his own he may not be a philosopher. All in all Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, is a fascinating character, and his meditations live on timelessly in history.

Reductio ad Absurdum: Deus Existat

While I am an atheist, and a proud atheist at that, I reached the conclusion that God did not exist by attempting to find a proof for God. However, know that there is not set criteria for determining if God exists. If God himself spoke to me, and partook in an act that violated the laws of nature or the laws of physics, then I would believe in his existence as a higher being. Yet this would not prove his omnipotence or that he was omnipowerful (do not tell me that that is not a word). It would not prove that he was the creator, or that he was the only higher-power. But it would prove that “God” or something along those lines existed.

Now, in a world where God does not talk to man how can we determine criteria for his existence? We are left to formulate the criteria for ourselves. However, if we are not divine beings, how can we attempt to determine if God does exist or if God does not exist? Aquinas attempted to determine that God did exist, and wrote a plethora of proofs trying to justify it. Descartes (cogito ergo sum) was left with no other option to turn to but that God existed. However, how can we trust these mortals? (I know Aquinas was sainted but that is beside the point; moreover I do not believe in miracles except in the case of the Denver Broncos and New York Yankees).

While it may appear illogical or irrational to attempt to find a proof for God in the present life (I do not believe in other lives, or heaven and hell but being as I am a stupid human I cannot be sure), we must at least attempt to make theological progress, and because God’s existence or nonexistence is of utmost importance. For if (some) Christian Doctrine or other religious doctrine is true and we must be servants of God in this life or we will be banished to eternal damnation we must at least explore His existence somewhat.

But where ought we to start looking for God? The fact that we exist is enough for many, or the fact that I am writing this and that you are reading it and we can discuss the existence of God is worthy of the proof of his existence. Yet I desire to examine it further. Could the fact that there are mathematical constants prove God? Or what about the fact that there is a universe that (probably) had a definite beginning (fourteen billion years or so ago) proves God. Others point to scripture; in many respects that notion is losing favor, but it is far from dead. Some point to the fact that there are bad things in the world to the fact that God does not exist. But the immense flaw that has plagued history of centuries is the assumption that is God exists he is good. Many atheists I have talked to are angry at the world and claim that God doesn’t exist because of it. But why do we assume that God is good and that God loves us; scripture! That is and the fact that we would hope that he is good, but we have no proof or reason to make the key jump to the assumption that if God exists he is good.

These are far from the only questions in this reductio ad absurdum argument that can be asked, but it is a descent sampling. The fact is that there are countless other arguments (cosmological, ontological, etc.) for his existence, but from the ones that I have examened, which include all that I could think of or read about, I have determined that God does not exist. There is no reason for him to, and I have seen no proof of his existence. Will writing this condemn me to a life of eternal damnation even though I am a moral person; possibly, but I sure as hell hope not. The fact remains that I see no proof of the existence of God, and therefore I conclude that he indeed does not exist.

Note that these are not even close to all my thoughts on this matter but I felt it time to write them down and publish them, and there was enough for a worthwhile post.

On Mathematical Truths

I would like to give some of my feeling on Mathematics. First it is pertinent to state that I am an extreme fan of mathematics to the point that the integers have become a love obsession of mine. What I have found is that there is growing support for the fact that numbers are personal invention, and that they are man made concoctions that would cease to exist were it not for humanity. I hope to dispel this notion. However, I am aware that my arguments are not completely developed, and if I am indeed in the wrong it is due to the fact that I want the position I am arguing for to be fact so badly.

The first argument in favor of integers being in existence independent of humans is the fact that there is that the universe is finite. In this particular galaxy, there are eight or nine planets depending on who you ask, my condolences to Pluto. The fact that there are certain quantities of things independent of humanity speaks to the notion that numbers exist. Critics say that numbers are adjectives or qualities that humans have given to entities. However, while I planet cannot be “beautiful” because there are not any humans to remark on its pulchritude, the planet still has oneness.

Another argument is the entity of numbers such as π and φ. The fact that numbers such as these exist independent of humanity, and mathematicians only discover these numbers is more ammunition for my argument. People did not create these numbers, but they did title them.

One argument that could be made is that Homo sapiens invented zero (0). In space, there is no void, sorry Democritus, so there cannot be a place where there is nothing. There is still space and time wherever one is, and therefore the notion of “nothingness” is impossible. An object may be devoid of something, but not of everything, hence the fact that nothing can be completely void, “the void” is a misnomer.

This has been an immensely abbreviated argument in favor of mathematical truths existing independent of humans. It shall be elaborated on, just not at the present time.

On my Religious Identity

One of my passions, something that I constantly think and wonder about is the topic of religion. I have come to the conclusion that God does not exist. However, I am still a Jew by birth, and I do not want to alienate myself from my heritage. Some may consider this (I hate to use clichés, but it is applicable here) "having your cake and eating it too." Yet I still care about the world Jewish community, am attempting to teach myself the language of the Jews (Hebrew, עברית), with some success mind you, and if I see a Jew it will not take me long to point out to you that he/she is Jewish (Einstein, Adam Sandler, Natelie Portman, et cetera). However, I only go to services if I have no other option. Yet I do voluntaritly attend the monthly "Teen Class" of my rabbi. Rabbi Scholnic (sorry if I misspelled that Rabbi) is one of my favourite people, and I do not have many role models or people that I admire (my role models include Nietzsche, Russell, you get the idea), but the Rabbi is up there. I do this to still stay within the Jewish community, but the fundamental issue is that I do not believe in God. In rescent years, there have been two major Jewish movements that are still Jewish, but do not ascribe to a dogmatic interpretation of Judaism. These are the Jewish Humanists, and the Reconstructionist Jews, the former of which I would consider joining.

I do not know if I hate religion or not, but I feel that once we have the groundwork for human morality, religion should be a neglegible part of society. Yet this is an ideal, and I know that if it were not for religion, life for many millions of people would have incredibly less meaning. Ideally, I would want the death of religion, but it is unrealistic. So, we are left to live with religion, and accept that it is here to stay. I do have great respect for some religious leaders (Pope John Paul II, some of the Rabbis I met on Pilgrimage, yes I went to Israel for five weeks this summer), but when one looks at the futile conflict in the Middle East, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and so on one cannot help but be angry at religion. But I cannot bring down religion, and I feel that man is not ready to live a life without God, so I accept religion, and still identify myself as an Jew who does not believe in God. I used to think that becuase this violates the first commandment I cannot do this, but the Jewish Humanists fought for this right, and therefore I feel able to identify myself as such. I still am a supporter of the Jews, I am a huge Zionist, and Israeli culture is something I feel that I understand and could see myself living in. My favourite rapper is סאבלימינל (Subliminal), real name Kobi Shimoni. He is part of תּאּקּטּ (T.A.C.T.) All-Stars, a super-group of Israeli hip-hop. I also like Matisyahu, and, as you can see from my use of it, I love the Hebrew Language. As a closing note, my plan is (if I get into Princeton, or another elite college where I can do this) is to the summer of my junior year of college study in Israel ( ישראל), and the summer of my senior study at Cambridge or Oxford, and take a symester and study at one of those. All in all, I was born a Jew, I care about the Jews, but I do not believe in God. You be the judge.

The 100 Most Influential People of All Time

Around 10 months or so ago, i came across a book entitled The 100. It was written by Michael H. Hart, and it inspired me to make my own list. I know that some of them are controversial, and I have reviewed the list countless times, and I know it will be altered again. However, this was five months of serious work, and I hope you enjoy my work. I shall justify the top 10 soon. Note that these are based on influence alone, and I am not judging their character. Many of the people here I despise, but they were nonetheless influential.

Muhammad (570- June 8, 632)
Jesus Christ (6 B.C. – 27 A.D.)
Saint Paul of Tarsus (10?-67)
Isaac Newton (December 25, 1642- March 20, 1727)
Gautama Buddha (563 B.C.E. – 483 B.C.E.)
Confucius (traditionally September 8? 551 BCE–479 BCE)
Aristotle (384- March, 7 322 B.C.)
Constantine the Great (February 27, 272–May 22, 337)
Ts’ai Lun (c. 50-121)
Johannes Guttenberg (1400-1468)
Galileo Galilei (February 15, 1564 – January 8, 1642)
Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895)
Christopher Columbus (1451 – 20 May 1506)
Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955)
Moses (Fl. 1500 B.C.E.)
Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882)
Euclid (c. 365-275 B.C.)
Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543)
Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14)
Qin Shi Huang Di (July 247 BC–221 BC)
Martin Luther (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546)
Karl Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883)
Michael Faraday (September 22, 1791 – August 25, 1867)
Galen (131-201)
Antoine Lavoisier (August 26, 1743–May 8, 1794)
James Watt (January 19, 1736–August 19, 1819)
William T.G. Morton (August 9, 1819 - July 15, 1868)
James Clerk Maxwell (June 13, 1831 - November 5, 1879)
Wright Brothers (c.1870)
Genghis Khan (c. 1155- August 18, 1227)
Thutmose III (c.1500? B.C.E. - 1426 B.C.E.)
George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799)
Plato (c. 427 BC – c. 347 BC)
Alexander the Great (late July, 356 BC–June 10, 323 BC)
Napoleon Bonaparte (15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821)
Pope Urban II (1042 - July 29, 1099)
John Locke (August 29, 1632–October 28, 1704)
Adam Smith (June 5, 1723 – July 17, 1790)
Adolph Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945)
Thoms Alva Edison (February 11, 1847 – October 18, 1931)
Alexander Graham Bell (March 3, 1847 – August 2, 1922)
King David (1085 B.C.E.- 1015 B.C.E.)
Alexander Fleming (August 6, 1881 – March 11, 1955)
Guglielmo Marconi (April 25, 1874 – July 20, 1937)
Hippocrates (c.460-380 B.C.)
King Solomon (970-928 B.C.E.)
Umar ibn al-Khattab (c. 581 - November, 644)
Edward de Vere (April 12, 1550 - June 24, 1604)
Anton van Leeuwenhoek (October 24, 1632 - August 26, 1723)
William the Conquerer (c. 1027 – September 9, 1087)
Gregor Mendel (July 22, 1822 – January 6, 1884)
Werner Heisenberg (December 5, 1901 – February 1, 1976)
John Dalton (September 6, 1766–July 27, 1844)
Asoka (c.300-c. 200 B.C.)
Oliver Cromwell (April 25, 1599 – September 3, 1658)
Julius Caesar (July 12, 100- March 15, 44 B.C.)
Ludwig van Beethoven (December 14 1770 – March 26, 1827)
John Calvin (July 10, 1509–May 27, 1564)
William Harvey (April 1, 1578 - June 3, 1657)
Simón Bolívar (July 24, 1783 – December 17, 1830)
René Descartes (March 31, 1596 – February 11, 1650)
Michelangelo Buonarroti (March 6, 1475 - February 18, 1564)
Lao Tzu (Fl. 450 B.C.)
Louis Daguerre (1787 - 1851)
Saint Augustine of Hippo (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430)
Max Planck (April 23, 1858 – October 4, 1947)
Edward Jenner (May 17, 1749 - January 26, 1823)
Archimedes (287 BC - 212 BC)
Nikolaus Otto (June 14, 1832 - January 28, 1891)
Johannes Kepler (December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630)
Ernest Rutherford (August 30, 1871 - October 19, 1937)
Joseph Lister (April 5, 1827 – February 10, 1912)
Isabella of Castile (April 22, 1451 – November 26, 1504)
Hernán Cortés (1485–December 2, 1547)
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826)
Joseph Stalin (December 21, 1879 - March 5, 1953)
Francisco Pizarro (c. 1475–June 26, 1541)
Zoroaster (Zarathustra) (c. 628- c. 551 B.C.E.)
Voltaire (November 21, 1694 – May 30, 1778)
Horace Wells (January 21, 1815 - January 24, 1848)
Carl Friedrich Gauss (April 30, 1777 - February 23, 1855)
Sigmund Freud (May 6, 1856 - September 23, 1939)
Nāgārjuna (c. 150 – c. 250)
Leonhard Euler (April 15, 1707 - September 18, 1783)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (June 28, 1712 – July 2, 1778)
Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen (March 27, 1845 – February 10, 1923)
Pierre de Fermat (August 17, 1601 – January 12, 1665)
Ben Franklin (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790)
Niccolo Machiavelli (May 3, 1469 – June 21, 1527)
Thomas Robert Malthus (February, 1766 – December 23, 1834)
Mencius (372 BC – 289 BC)
Peter the Great (9 June 1672–8 February 1725)
Vladamir Ilyich Lenin (April 22, 1870 – January 21, 1924)
Enrico Fermi (September 29, 1901 – November 28, 1954)
Mao Zedong (December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976)
Johann Sebastian Bach (March 21, 1685 – July 28, 1750)
Sui Wen Ti (541-604)
Gregory Pincus (April 9, 1903 - August 22, 1967)
Mani (210-276)
Mahavira (599 BC - 527 BC)
Charlemagne (c. 742 – January 28, 814)
Cyrus II the Great of Persia (576 - July, 529 BC)
Socrates (June 4, 470-399 B.C.)

On Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

While I was in Israel this summer, my groupmates (many of who I miss) and I came across a sect of Judaism that followed Reb Nachman of Breslov, a "cult" I guess. At the time it was something fun to be a part of, and to intigrate ourselves in the Israeli Jewish society. However, upon returning to my fatherland, when I had access to "la red" (internet in Spanish. I just thinks its interesting how what takes one syllable to say in Spanish takes three in English), and I researched Reb (Rebbe, Rabbi) Nachman, and I found how interesting he really is. Basically, he was the Grandson of the Baal Shem Tov, and was greatly moved by the lineage that he was carrying. Nachman was a very upright individual, and a poweful spiritual leader. However, because he passed away so early in his life, aged less than two score, and the great following he amassed in that short period of time gives him almost cult-like status. Nachman even has his own chant, and it is written all over the place in Israel, including Tzfat (צפת) and outside Hezekiah's tunnell. I encourage all to research Nachman of Breslov on the internet, and some of his quotes are powerful and moving. I end with the Nachman chant,

נ
נח
נחמ
נחמן מאומן

This transliterates as

Nah
Nach (the hebrew letter Chet ח is used here, and it has the CH sound)
Nachmah
Nachman Mae-Uman

Some views on the Tanakh

My view of the תנ״ך (Tanakh, or the Old Testament, The Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvin) is one that some may consider unorthodox, or blasphemous (note the fact that I am an atheist). First of all, I do not accept the existence of Abraham, and I greatly question the existence of Moses. However, I find it very possible that there was indeed a minor exodus from Egypt, and the Egyptians did not want to record it, so it is lost form the records. I believe that the magnitude of the exodus has been exaggerated by “J”, or whoever wrote the bible, or my history itself. Yet as time progressed in the bible, I begin to believe what happened more and more. For example, I do believe in the bible (as history!) from around the time of Saul. I would like to accredit King David with authorship of the psalms, but I do not know if I am ready to grant him that. I believe in the existence of Solomon, and I believe that the prophets existed. In fact, I believe that the prophets existed so much that I call them the first philosophers, and not the Greeks. However, Greek philosophy basically a separate entity from Judaism, but I find it difficult to believe that there was no Jewish influence in Asia Minor, where the first philosopher came from. However, Thales still has the same respect as he did before I nominated the prophets to be the first “lovers of wisdom”, but I believe the Prophets of the Bible should be studied with philosophy.

The Dawn of a Blog

Hello, my name is Brian Hillman, and thank you for coming to my blog. This blog has been a long time coming, and I believe that it is imperative that I explaim some things about myself. I am an aspiring philosopher and mathamtician with a passion for the arts and linguistics, and have an obsession with getting into a prestigious college. For my initial post I have chosen to post one of my short essays that is by no means complete or completely edited, but I feel it does some justice to my work.



The Beginning Works on what Philosophy is and What Philosophers are

It is very difficult to determine what a philosopher is, and what philosophy is. Etymologically, philosophy is the “love of wisdom”, from the Greek Φιλοσοφία. However, there are so many different definitions of what philosophy is, and what philosophers are, it has become clouded. In contemporary times, the ancient definition a lover of wisdom has no merit. A lover of wisdom and a lover of knowledge have become clouded, and we desperately need a new definition.

However, before we can pinpoint what a philosopher is, we must fist determine what philosophy is. Russell claimed that philosophy is what lies between religion and science. This is not a bad definition, but granted he clearly had a more complex definition of it. Philosophy is antiquity was the study of everything worth thinking about. The first philosophers were the Sophists, and they thought about everything from morality to natural science. So, until the fall of Rome, and maybe even as early as the death of Plotinus, the classical definition of one who thought about everything is a valid definition of a philosopher. However, since Boethius, the definition has been clouded. Boethius claimed that only Σωκράτης, Αριστοτέλης, and Πλάτων (Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, respectively) were true philosophers (he probably included all those who came before him, for example Anaxagoras and Parimenides, but granted he was angry at the time of writing), and the Stoics were not. That trio was true “lovers of wisdom”, and all the others who studied philosophy were not true philosophers. However, the entire concept of wisdom was never pursued so thoroughly since the time of Socrates, and so wisdom is not the main characteristic of philosophy.

As somewhat of a non sequetor, I will quickly skip to contemporary philosophy, and look backwards. What has characterized philosophy since the time of Thales (although I think philosophy may have started 400 years before him with the prophets, but another essay, another time) is aesthetics, metaphysics, morality, and ethics. Douglass J. Soccio claims that Epistemology should be in the discussion, and politics cannot be ignored. I should interject that I am a descriptivist when it comes to the definition of philosophy, and I believe that it changes with those who are “philosophers.” However, it will not work to call a philosopher one who studies policy, metaphysics, morality, ethics, (ignore God for now) and aesthetics, because maybe Hegel and Aristotle would be the only two philosophers! So, we have established the classical definition of a philosopher, the etymological definition, and what philosophers study, but we are only slightly closer to determining what philosophy is.

I would like to add that philosophers are free thinkers, and deal with pure thought, as opposed to actual brain activity, hence the field of neurology. However, before neurology was a dignified field, Hume, Locke as well as others dealt with what thought more in the sense of what idea is, as opposed to how the brain works. I must also add that just because one is a free-thinker, he is not necessarily a philosopher. In summation, philosophers are freethinkers who deal with thought.

Going back to the time of Boethius, philosophers have studied everything worth studying, and if the stoics should be considered in the conversations of who is a philosopher is in question. After Boethius, the next people who studied philosophers were the Arabs up to Aquinas. Al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Aviceena, Averroes and al’Arabi (to some extend, but his work in mainly as a theologian. Theologians as philosopher shall be discussed do not fear) are the main Arabic Philosophers. What they did was study the Greek philosophers, and expanded upon it, while injection some of their religion. Granted, the Hellenistic philosophers were polytheists, and the Arabs were monotheists, but theology did not mix too well with philosophy (just ask Philo). However, the Arabic philosophers were those who studied philosophy and commented on it. This will play a key role in the definition of philosophy.

After Aviceena, the next main Philosopher was Aquinas. Here is where we see the difference between theology. Aquinas as a philosopher can be considered in his work with Metaphysics, but not with theology. The break between philosophy and theology is when one stops questioning the existence of god, and takes a firm stance, and begins to study scripture. Aquinas’s commentary on the bible cannot be considered in the story of philosophy, because they are dogmatic, and deal with god, and not pure thought. This takes us to The Rambam, and he is even less of a Philosopher than Aquinas. Granted, he did contribute some to philosophy, but he mainly dealt with theology, hence the fact he is not considered a major philosopher. From this, we can see that philosophers appear to be those who study philosophy, but (just ask Boethius) that is not the case.

After Maimonides philosophy appeared again in the Renaissance, mainly with More and Erasmus. These humanists were philosophers to some extent, but their writings dealt mostly with theology. However More’s Utopia and Erasmus’s In Praise of Folly were truly philosophical. The former dealing with ethics and policy and the latter dealing with aesthetics (I have chosen aesthetics because I do not know how to categorize it, and human nature will not suffice. However, there were some dealing with aesthetics in the work, so I have categorized it as such). After them, the next important philosopher was Hobbes. This is where philosophy changed in the sense that philosophers became more political. It was not that prior to this philosopher did not write on the subject of politics (Aristotle, and Plato dealt with it in-depth), but it marked the beginning of the glory days of political philosopher. Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire as well as others dealt with thought and human understanding as well as politics. It was not until the time Hume and Kant where philosophy moved away from policy, and back to metaphysics and epistemology.

From Kant, we must look at philosophy after him as a whole. After him existentialism became the most popular subject in philosophy, and ironically philosophy has somewhat come full circle. In this time the philosophical branches of politics, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, morals and god have been thoroughly discussed and expanded upon. The one thing that may be added to philosophy is the study of linguistics and analytical philosophy, with the former being more important. The function of language has been greatly expanded upon thanks to Wittgenstein, but it was still discussed prior to him. However, he was the first philosopher who is defined by his linguistic philosophy.

So, after taking an immensely abbreviated course thought the history of philosophy are we any closer to defining what is philosophy: not really. The truth is that philosophy is more of a blanket term that changes through the eras of history. In antiquity it had a different definition than it did in the middle ages and in modern times. However, we are closer to determining what a philosopher are. Philosophers are those who study philosophy, expand upon it, a have a genuine desire to learn and understand (although Socrates would say that one cannot learn because one cannot definitely know anything). The definition is forever changing, and philosophy is indeed better for it. Through this entire essay I have not addressed eastern philosophy, because it is a completely separate entity from western philosophy. But back to what philosophy is. Philosophy, as we have seen, is best defined as the study of a group of concepts that philosophers discuss. However, what exactly should go into that group is not completely clear, but is does appear that metaphysics, morality, ethics, god (in terms of his existence and the ramifications, not scripture), and politics should be in that group. These definitions do show a clear link between what philosophy is and who indeed is a philosopher, which is an imperative necessity. Yet these do add loopholes. For example, should John Rodriguez, who read Aristotle’s Poetics in twelfth grade and wrote a reaction to it on which he received a D-, be considered a philosopher? Technically, judging by the definition, yes. However, it is clearly arguagable if he deserves to be among the likes of Sartre, Nietzsche and Foucault.

In conclusion I say that it is much easier to determine who a philosopher is than what is philosophy (paradoxically, how can we be more able to determine what is a part of a set than determining what the set is?). Philosophy, as it has hitherto developed has certain characteristics, but it is likely that the focus of philosophy will, in some capacity, change. Will this breed a new definition of philosophy? I say that it will change the definition of philosophy, but it will appear similar to what the present one may look like. All in all, we do not completely know who is a philosopher and who was a philosopher due to relativism (not relativity), but as philosophers we must at least attempt to determine a doctrine with which we identify ourselves.