Re: Other schools of science

[zinov@xxxxxxxxxx]

> The main things that made the Greeks much more influential was not
> superiority in their philosophy, but
>
> 1) The conquest of the known world by Alexander
> 2) The conquest of the known world by the Romans
> 3) The conquest of the known world by the Europeans
> 4) THe conquest of the known world by the Americans
>
> As we can see, these are due to military warfare rather than any
> inherent superiority in the philosophy.

If we are interested in ancient Greek works because they are influential, then
why they were influential is irrelevant. If we are interested in the works
because of their intrinsic value, then even if they were influential for
reasons other than their value, this should do nothing to undermine our
interest.

Of course, we might falsely judge that they are valuable because they are
influential, and pointing out that they are influential for some reason other
than their value would partly undermine that judgement. However, many people
(including myself) have read some such works and made independent judgements
about the value of such works, not simply made judgements based on historical
influence. There have been many years since Greek conquests to re-evaluate
such works.

As for how one intellectual tradition compares with other traditions, I am not
sure that this is a particularly worthwhile question to ask. Instead, we could
ask whether particular works are valuable. If there is some Chinese work, for
example, which gives a decent philosophical argument that is otherwise unheard
of, it might be worth bringing this to people's attention. But that does not
require comparing the Chinese intellectual tradition as a whole to ancient
Greece or the intellectual tradition that originated there. (However, there
are certain historical questions such comparisons might be relevant to. Like,
what conditions provide for a flourishing intellectual culture -- we might
want to look at other comparable cultures.)