This week in philosophy we discussed Democritus and Zeno in a fashion that contrasted them mostly. In this way of learning I feel compelled sometimes to pick a philosopher that I think is most right, forgetting that I don't have to do that. I forget sometimes that although these men are of great influence to western thought and elsewhere, their theories are THEIR theories and interpretations of understanding life. As weird as it might seem, I can grasp both of their theories and find truth in each. If I were to "pick" one like my mind tells me to, then Democritus would be the most liable choice. The notion that "we know nothing about anything" has always been an interest to me since I first started studying philosophy and reading Democritus made it that much more interesting. Also, his theories on destiny by necessity are compelling to think about. The fragments on Democritus' ethics are mostly agreeable to me with a few exceptions. Most of them toward the end, however made me look at things in a positive light and brought out a bit of optimism when reading and recollecting these ethics. The way they were explained and laid out reminded me of Confucius a little, just because each ethical theory was so insightful and interesting to think about.
"One must not seek the latter, but must be content with the former, comparing one's own life with that of those in worse cases, and must consider oneself fortunate." (Democritus). That idea has carried on in so many forms and through so many years, it is inevitable to be truthful and inspiring.
No comments:
Post a Comment