Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 21:17:37 -0400
Cc: "Scott A. Simmons" 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: questions of origin 

Over on athena-discuss, Scott A. Simmons wrote:

> 'influence'.  I am puzzled however, that the matter seems settled
> for him based on an appeal to resemblance in temple
> architecture.  
> Many artifacts of Greek civilization bear a marked
> resemblance to those of other contemporary cultures.  Many
> have already acknowledged, and I am not about to deny, the
> Greeks' penchant for 'copying' (plagiarizing, stealing, horse-
> thieving, etc.) the achievements of other cultures.  

You concede "influence".  The only question remaining therefore
is degree: was it massive or was it slight?

> In few
> instances, however, is this done without the Greeks adding their
> own touches.  Many have called this the peculiar gift of the
> Greeks, and have even suggested that their actions should be
> interpreted as a tribute.  This gift has an economy attached to it
> that has indeed come back to haunt it.  That is, this wholesale
> appropriation can be equally well-read as a theft, as opposed to a
> tribute.  Your read is obviously the former, and that is fair
> enough.  Let the chips fall where they may.

I would readily grant "tribute" as opposed to "theft", if
the "wholesale appropriation" were acknowledged by those whose
names now attract credit that is not theirs.  If they (Archimedes,
Aristotle, Thales, among others) took from the Egyptians without
acknowledging it, then they committed plagiarism, by definition.
If such as Aristotle, Archimedes, also Plato, are implicated
in the plagiarism, then the "borrowing" has to be counted as
massive indeed.  Even if the Greeks added their own touches,
the fact of plagiarism, if such it was, calls into question what
their added value really was.  How does one know where the work
of a plagiarist begins, and that of his victim ends, when that
of the latter is no longer available for examination.

> Now, in regard to philosophy and the copying of the wisdom of
> the Egyptians,  you seem to be solidly convinced that the Greeks
> not only co-opted and appropriated Egyptian wisdom, but
> corrupted it in the process.  Egyptian wisdom is, by extension,
> both prior and superior to Greek philosophy, which is the
> former's watered-down, simple version.  Please correct me if I
> am mistaken.  

That is a speculation of mine based on the seven-point classification
of the Egyptians which I summarized in my post, in which certain
abilities (Ba, Khu, Shekem) are mentioned which are alien
to the thought-systems handed down by the Greeks, while the 
others, Ab and Sahu in particular seem to encompass much of the
wisdom--philosophical, mathematical, and scientific--that today
is credited to the Greeks.  This inclusion relationship does
suggest the hypothesis that the Egyptians had more than was
shared with the Greeks.

> While I have my own persistent doubts about the
> integrity and validity of European philosophy, I also see in it a
> unique way of approaching fundamental problems that begins,
> in one way or another, in the Greek manner of approaching
> wisdom.  In this light, I would here offer two objections to the
> 'bad copy' assertion whcih point out relevant differences between
> the Greek approach and that of the more ancient wisdom of the
> Egyptians and the Persians (let's still not forget that this is
> leaving aside all of the ancient wisdom east and south of those
> empires).
> 
> 1)  The pre-Socratics appear to be unique in that they divorce
> their pursuit of wisdom from theology (whether mono or poly-
> theistic).   Aristophanes' _Clouds_ gives a nice caricature of these
> folks.   Natural events were to be explained through natural
> phenomena and the key to such explanation was observation.
> Perhaps this tendency was merely a reductionist enterprise, as
> would be suggested when comparing it with the seven-point
> division of the Egyptians.  Nevertheless, it is a shift in the focus,
> and a return to the details.

He who can do more can also do less, as Diop is fond of pointing
out.  It is no contradiction to assert spiritual knowledge and
abilities, while at the same time asserting the skills and 
abilities associated with abstraction, syllogistic logic, and
so on.  And there is no *necessary* advantage in the divorce of
which you speak.  The God/Science debate is spurious, although
there are many, confused either about God or science, 
who may think there is some necessary opposition between the two.

> 2)  In Plato's Socrates we witness a revolution in what it means
> to be wise.  As the _Apology_ has it.  The wisest man in Athens
> is distinguished not by the store of knowledge which he has, but
> by his admission of ignorance.  At least such was the prophecy of
> the Delphic Oracle regarding Socrates.  Socrates' wisdom consists
> in knowing that he does not know.  As it appears to me, this is a
> significant accomplishment in its own right, and follows from
> that other prophecy of the oracle to "Know thyself!".

Which injuction, btw, apparently predates Socrates, having been
a favorite inscription on Egyptian temple walls prior to
Socrates.  I saw some of these inscriptions myself on my trip
to Egypt, as the guides are quite proud to point them out.
As to the wisdom of "knowing that one does not know", that is
an appropriate posture from which to begin an inquiry, but I
don't think that the real world looks kindly on people who
maintain a position of nescience in all things.  To live is
to act.  To act is, if not to *know*, at least to make a best
guess at knowing at every decision point where action must be
taken.

> For myself, I study philosophy because I love learning.  I have no
> solid convictions, and will consider myself a failed student if I
> ever do.  Everything is up for grabs, and this puts me at odds
> with those who would vehemently argue for any particular
> perspective and try to pass it off as the 'truth'.   Indeed, it puts me
> at odds with most of the human inhabitants of this planet who
> begin from solidly held beliefs, and who aren't likely to challenge
> these unless they are persuaded to others, which in turn they are
> convinced of, and so on.  I require none of the comforts offered
> by such beliefs and consider myself lucky to be free of them.  

That is a luxury possible only in an ivory-tower sort of world.
Once you get into the hurly-burly of the real world, you quickly
realize that decisions must be made with the best information
available at the time, using the most rigorous logic at one's 
disposal.  That includes "knowing oneself".

> If
> Egyptian philosophy shares this maverick spirit with me, I will
> welcome its 'influence'.   Until then, I thank you for your testimony
> in support of the primacy of Egyptian wisdom.

Primacy is too strong a word.  But there is every possibility,
considering that the Egyptian civilization was a settled,
continuous one for several thousands of years, that they attained
knowledge and insight that Western civilization in the 500-odd
years since the Renaissance has not yet.

> Cordially,
> 
> Scott A. Simmons
> Department of Philosophy
> SUNY at Stony Brook
> ssimmons@ic.sunysb.edu
> dirempt@interramp.com

Regards,

Contents | Previous | Next