Re: Other schools of science

[jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx]

> I have a hard time believing that ancient Rome was
> especially free compared to modern Western societies.

The US government was based on Rome. The US Senate, the Founding Fathers
were named after Publius, Cincinnatus, Cato, Brutus, the Society of
Cincinnatus that George Washington was President of, the Aquila eagle as
the national mascot, the Roman classical architecture, US Capitol named
after Capitoline Hill...

The name Republic comes from Latin Res Publica.

> Some of the most influential philosophers from the 20th century are even
> American. For example, Saul Kripke, David Lewis, Thomas Kuhn, John Rawls, and
> Robert Nozick.

What did they do that makes them influential?

-- 
Aaron Lin
jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx
IRCNow (https://ircnow.org)

>On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 01:54:29AM +0000, zinov@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > I found this interesting list of the top 50 greatest mathematicians of
> > all time: https://www.sapaviva.com/the-50-greatest-mathematicians/
> >
> > There's British, French, German mathematicians; there's Ancient Greek,
> > Chinese, and Arab; even a Japanese mathematician.
> >
> > But not one single American, and not a single Roman from Italy.
> >
> > Both of those societies, America and Rome, had the most free institutions.
> > Many of the other societies (like France and Germany and Ancient China) had
> > absolute monarchies.
> >
> > Since mathematics is the science most similar to philosophy, this is
> > convincing proof that liberty has no correlation with philosophy.
> 
> There are two distinct questions here when one talks about whether liberty has
> a correlation to philosophy. We could ask whether increased liberty leads to
> more philosophy, and also whether philosophical work leads to increased
> liberty. The founding principles of the United States are inspired by the work
> of philosophers. You have done nothing to undermine the claim that
> philosophical work can lead to political or social improvements, even if you
> have shown that free societies are no more likely to produce good philosophy.
> 
> As for the question of whether liberty leads to more philosophy, I do not see
> why it should, except in the sense that liberty guarantees a lack of certain
> hindrances to philosophy. But in any case, your evidence of a lack for a
> correlation between liberty and philosophy is quite weak.
> 
> Comparing one or two free societies with all societies throughout history is
> not a fair comparison. The United States has not been around that long, and is
> only a single society. I have a hard time believing that ancient Rome was
> especially free compared to modern Western societies.
> 
> John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, and G. E. Moore are some examples of
> important British philosophers from the 19th and 20th centuries. Presumably,
> 19th and 20th century Britain was quite free relative to historical standards.
> 
> Some of the most influential philosophers from the 20th century are even
> American. For example, Saul Kripke, David Lewis, Thomas Kuhn, John Rawls, and
> Robert Nozick.
> 
> There was a lot more low-hanging fruit in ancient times, so we cannot expect
> the same significance from more recent work. Of course, this disadvantages
> relatively free societies, since they are more recent.
> 
> It seems reasonable to suppose that a society with freedom of speech will,
> other things being equal, have greater philosophical achievements than one
> that greatly restricts discussion of philosophical topics. However, there is
> no reason to suppose that the mere liberty to do philosophy will lead to
> significant philosophical work. If a society is free and wealthy, philosophy
> will not be hindered, but philosophical work might fail to happen due to lack
> of interest. There might be some cultural differences from the US compared to
> ancient Greece that leads to less interest in philosophy (I do not know if
> this is true), but that is not the fault of liberty.
> 
> Unlike philosophy, where freedom of speech is important, this is much less so
> in the case of mathematics, so there is even less of a reason to expect much
> of a correlation here. Of course, mathematical work probably does have some
> correlation with wealth.
> 
> (By the way, I was unable to view the page you linked to. It requires
> JavaScript.)
> 
>