Bizarre thinking

K S Sivakumaran

We know the Greek philosophers made us think. From their times philosophical ideas became subject to change or modification. At the beginning it was thought Philosophy was born in wonderment and curiosity. It was linked with superstition and myth.

Speculative questions made people think. These were related to the universe, life, life after death, existence of God, how man comes to know about the world around him. Speculative thinking is really unscientific ramblings. But reason plays a part even in speculation. Thales thought that 'water' was the substance that determines things. He said "Everything comes from water and every thing returns to water".

Several others thought differently based on the question "What is behind Nature?" Conflicting conclusions resulted in a deadlock. Later there arose the Sophists who remarked that knowledge was relative. They employed the art of persuasion. They denied the objectivity of Truth and Morals. They said: "There is nothing called Truth, it cannot be known. Even if it can be known it cannot be communicated."

Then came what was known as Epistemological thinking. Here questions such as 'Is it possible for humans to know? If it is possible, how does he gain knowledge?' were asked. But there was no basis for reasonable arguments. In this phase came Socrates.

Emphasis was shifted from contemplation on the origin of the physical world to contemplation on the humans themselves. Is it possible to know was the question. An outcome of this logical process was the attempt to define things by philosophers.

The credit goes to Socrates who introduced the definition of words that we ordinarily use. He introduced the method of questions and answers to examine the world and show the opponents the contradictions in their thinking process.

Individuals make statements. But if we examine them carefully we will find that there would be a concept or a common idea behind them. Beneath the diversity of sensations and feelings there is the 'thinking capacity' which is common to all of us.

Aristotle studied the system of Socrates and gave it a systematized form. Plato improved the work of Socrates in two ways: He was not confined in his attention wholly to moral ideas. He used the method of questions and answers to break down the scepticism of the Sophists. Plato also developed a positive method of definition: "Man is a rational, corporeal animal."

But Aristotle went further and explained that "Having sensations and the power of independent locomotion", therefore Man is an animal. But the main point is that Aristotle believed that all genuine knowledge could be demonstrated.

Then we come across something that was called Syllogism. It was the form of valid reasoning - demonstrating the truth of some fault by showing its relation to a general principle which everyone accepts is the basis of syllogism. He presented a theory of argumentation as opposed to the false theories, particularly of the Sophists.

However some feel that the Sophists cannot be condemned completely because Socrates borrowed some of the methods used by the Sophists such as 'cross examination' Further Sophists always aimed at convincing the others to prove a point rather than achieve truth. The cynics and sceptics are still with us.