500 B.c.

[Franconicus]

500 B.C. there was a jump in human civilisation, in technology, science, art, philisophy and politics. It happaned in Greece, in India and China.

So my question to the historians. What caused it, was there a link between the different cultures? Aliens??

[Watchman]

Off the top of my head I'd be willing to hazard favorable climatic conjecturals, the same way as spells of cold trigger global waves of unrest, revolt and general backtracking.

[Kraxis]

Iron used in a proper amount and with enough skill.

In around 7-600BC iron was finally 'finished'. No longer an expensive curiosity used in few thisng (such as weapons), but something that could be used by practically all. And we all know that the strength of iron makes a lot of things possible.
So around 500BC the results would begin to show themselves.

But to say it was worldwide is not true.
The Assyarians, Babylonians, Medians and proto-Armenians had their own high periods just prior to this. But then again it seems this was their time for the iron to be used properly.

[master of the puppets]

It was a second rising of human culture, as always humanities proficiency undulates, 5000-2000 BC was dominated by highly advanced civilizations by even our standards, the asyrians, the Xai chinese, the egyptians. and what brought about this great time of enlightenment was probably attributed to the first agricultural advances (seasonal growing in egypt, rotational farming in mesopotamia, aquaducts in china) which allowed for more food output, also there was bronze, a sturdy metal that could be easily produced and distributed, and also the chariot which had by this time spread all over europe asia and africa, it allowed for better travel and quicker less expensive wars.
Then for some reason human kind dipped a little, less production, fewer inventions, loss of intelligence and learning. i don't know why that happened, but i do know that we were dragged back to speed by the hellenes.
Iron was probably the cause of the great breakthrough as already stated. but also there were great naval advances which brought about an amount of trade never formerly aquired, so riches and cultures were allowed to spread, and the greeks who were a great sea-faring people quickly drew all the intelligence to themselves.

i cannot explain the Boom in china or india for unfortunatly like many americans my knoledge is centered on the west.

[Franconicus]

That is all? A little iron and humans reach the top of their creativity? C'mmon, what do you guys learn at university?

First time I realized that 500 BC is a strange age was when I wrote a book of philosophy's history. Did you ralize that it was about the same time that the Greeks had Socarates, Aristoteles, Plato and many more when the Indians reached the top of their philosophy and the Chinese had Konfuzius? Is this a strange coincidence? Or consequence of iron?

I also noticed that then all three civilisations were fragmented. Maybe this promoted the freedem of individual spirit. And that all three had access to the sea and probably started to sail.

Some centuries later the civs turned into big empires and the spirit of civilization superseded by the spirit of power.

[Atilius]

The period (roughly) from 600BC-400BC is often referred to as the Axial Age. New strains of thought during this time frame include:

China
Lao-tze (I Ching)
Kung Fu-tze (Analects)
Latter part of the "Hundred Schools of Thought" period.


Greek World
Greek Philosophy - Anaximander, Anaximenes, Thales,
Parmenides, Democritus, Socrates
History - Herodotus and Thucydides


India
Gautama Siddartha (Buddhism)
Mahavira (Reform of Jainism)
Upanishads (Commentaries on the Vedas)


Persia
Zoroaster


In this period, we see the foundation of two of the world's great religions(Taoism and Buddhism) and the re-interpretation of another (Hinduism); we have the founding of Zoroastrianism and the refounding of Jainism. In addition, we have the birth proto-scientific thought (e.g. Thales and Democritus), moral philosophy (Socrates and Kung Fu-tze), and history (Herodotus and Thucycides).

For such a short period of time, this is extraordinary.

I think that this is most likely due to an expansion of trade and aided by the spread of literacy.

The great ferment in human thought at this time must have been stimulated
by exposure to different ideas and people from abroad. We know that at the beginning of this period the greeks were founding colonies all around the Mediterranean. The Phocians, for example, founded both Massilia and Ampurias (in modern France and Spain, respectively) in about 600 BC. The Persian Empire was expanding throughout the period and by about 520 BC controlled the Eastern Mediterranean from Asia Minor to Egypt and extended east beyond the Indus. Persia thus provides a link between the Mediterranean trade network and India. I regret I'm unaware of a significant link between India and China at this time.

Trade spreads ideas as well as goods. If those ideas can be written down they travel better and with greater accuracy and precision. Of course for ideas to be written down requires an author and a literate readership. Fortunately, trade itself is a stimulus to literacy since it improves both record keeping and communication between markets.

I'll leave aside the question of why trade expanded to avoid infinite regress, but when conditions for extensive travel became favorable, trade seems to have been the first beneficiary. Political unification seems to have followed. It's interesting to note that shortly after the Axial Age ended, we see the very first unification of the entire eastern Mediterranean (Alexander ~320 BC), of India (Maurya ~325 BC), and of China (Qin ~220 BC).

[Franconicus]

Thanks for these infos. Maybe you are right. Trade opened the horizont.

Regarding the great inventions: do not forget Math, the money (root of all evils!). You may even say that Plato was also one source for Christianity.

If we assume that trade opened this great age, what ended it. The big empire were never as productive. Even todays we are not as innovative.

[Watchman]

Speaking of money, when were the first coins minted ? Wasn't that sometime around 600s or 500s BC ? I seem to recall reading something along those lines. That'd certainly have had its own impact on trade.

[Vladimir]

I'd like to reiterate Watchman's point of the weather being a factor. I think more research on that topic would prove to be beneficial. For the last ~10,000 years since the last ice age the weather has finally been stable enough to allow advanced civilizations to develop. The Medieval warming period also prompted great growth and it appears we are now in a new warming period. There are some people who would argue that we are still in an ice age because glaciers are still retreating from over 10,000 years ago!

[Kraxis]

It can't be trade...

Prior to this age both Halicarnassus and Gordion were major tradinghubs. You know Kroisus and Midas, well they were just the last in a long line of rulers of those areas (though Midas' father Gordias started his line, there were others before him).

We don't hear much of them because what we have preserved is what the Greeks wrote of them. And the Greeks not being as properous as them were perhaps a bit envious.

Not to disregard the Phoenecians. Carthage was already big, strong and hugely wealthy on trade. Tyre had even seen it's zenith before and was slowly declining in importance.

To say it was the trade that did it would mean we would think Greek trade was more important because it was Greek. That can't be right.

Iron didn't impact thinking of course. Iron had been around for centuries. But the resources it freed let man become more aware of his own self and his surroundings.
But this of course also demanded some sort of personal freedom an in Greece at least, that was exactly what was happening. The Aristocracies were surplanted by Tyranies (what doesn't mean they were bad) and Oligarchies. In Athens this had a positive effect as seemingly the normal person could do something, even become ruler. And with generous Tyrants this fostered the feelign of freedom that eventually culminated in democracy (which later turned into mob-rule).
The first Greek philosophers came about during the various tyranies. Of course they were still relatively simple, but they were there and laid the groundwork for Socrates.

[Watchman]

Prior to this age both Halicarnassus and Gordion were major tradinghubs. You know Kroisus and Midas, well they were just the last in a long line of rulers of those areas (though Midas' father Gordias started his line, there were others before him)....weren't these the kings who intriduced minted currency, or at least their close successors ? From some of the dates I recall seeing the idea wasn't too old - only a century or so, max - around the time of the two rulers you named. And I'm under the impression the introduction of minted coinage as opposed to just precious metals was a major step, although probably not as great as the invention of banking in the late Middle Ages.

I think it could be very possible coinage changed the impact of trade sufficiently to have had an effect.

[Kraxis]

Yeah, seemingly the first coins we know of came from Lydia around 600BC.
But both Halicanassus and Gordion (as an area) were important prior to that. As was Tyre and Carthage.
And whil coins were important inside the social structure of the local realm, they had no impact outside it. There coins were just another lump of precious metal (it took some time still for bronze and copper coins to be introduced), and was used just like the nuggets of precious metals used for trading previously.

[Watchman]

Well, of course. Long-distance trade was well established already in the Stone Age. I was just talking about the means of transactions, which are often quite important.

Coinage is kinda funny because those royal profiles and suchlike actually improve its value beyond its base metal content. Isn't the idea the minting acts as a sort of "proof of quality" of the coins, a quarantee they're of at least minimum content of gold or whatever and not too badly debased with other metals ? Paper money moves to the field of pure symbolical value already, but let's not go into that.

[master of the puppets]

you belittle the influence of iron my freinds, this was the age when the first large iron plow was invented. without it socratese probably would have been out farming from dawn til dusk and would have had no time for his writings, the plow redused the time it took to farm by almost half, which gave time for thinking. its almost like evolution, when food became readily available it...oh crap, the bell, i'll continue this later.

[Franconicus]

Why did it end? In Roman time there was a lot of iron + trade + everything. But people were not that creative. And today. At least the western coutries have enought food and time and iron.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I don't think the 500 BC events are as odd as it might seem. The actual changes that took place at the time might be impressive, but throughout history there's a fairly good synchronization between different civs. But there exist reasons why civs would need to get more advanced in terms of technology, and why they would be able to do so. Here I've summarized the major factors inspired by posts above and myself, and looking at the whole it doesn't seem so strange IMO...

Why the iron was more important than the bronze:
Iron invented in 600 BC. Archaeological evidence following the development of refinery techniques shows that it improved between 600 and 500 BC. The thing about iron is that the ore is abundant, the main thing that prevented early humans from using it was that the refinery techniques required are complex. Once that obstacle had been passed, and refinery techniques had been improved, it was therefore possibe to make it a product for pretty much everyone, unlike bronze.

Military competition
Military competition favored civs who started using iron weaponry. Whether this was the main driving reason behind adoption of iron is unclear. But if a civ without iron gets defeated, it stands a huge chance of adopting the iron technology. If a civ adopts iron, it gets better chances of being a conqueror and not a conquered. Therefore iron technology must have been spread by warfare and conquests. It could also have been spread by trade and other methods, and been desirable because of the military competition scenario.

First abundant non-argicultural product, economical and social structure of civs changes
Iron must also have been one of the first non-agricultural products that actually became wide-spread. Such a change must have caused a revolution to social structure of neolitic civs. More professions that don't directly give food and water were therefore allowed, basically starting the second wave of such developments, the first being the one caused by the farming revolution. Such things allowed philosophy and science, among other things, to exist. That way explosions of science, philosophy and art of the time can be explained. The economical revolution probably also caused more long-distance trade - the opening of several long-distance trade paths can be connected in time to this period. Greece importing grain, the silk road and similar starting to form, etc. That also made it possible to easier acquire knowledge of iron etc. from others without needing to face war first. Edit: And as mentioned above the plow and similar inventions meant less manhours were needed for feeding the people.

Written languages more widespread
Many of the early written languages were probably developed for bookkeeping. The economical and trading revolution caused by the iron (and possibly also other things), must have made bookkeeping more useful. Merchants who could do proper bookkeeping must have been more successful, and so inspired others to adopt written bookkeeping. Similarly now that philosophers and scientists and others were able to work, those who adopted written language must have been more successful, thus inspiring others to adopt it. While written languages caused better trade and science etc., it also enabled people to write down knowledge and art created over centuries. Therefore, written language is the cause of why we think 500 BC was so impressive, while in fact not nearly as many of the inventions as we think were invented at that time, but probably earlier, and not written down until then.

Why not pure luck?
Most events in history that shouldn't be related aren't. So why couldn't this be one of the few exceptions caused by pure luck? Even if the reasons mentioned above wouldn't be enough to cause this development, it could be one of the few cases where Fortuna has played an important role. Maybe instead we should be surprised that not more non-casuality things are correlated?

The classical depiction of the era gives wrong impression - fact is it wasn't global, and it wasn't too widespread
Most classical history books that give summaries of the period concentrate on the odd things like philosophy, arts etc. that stand out, but in reality there were more groups that these things didn't reach at all. Plus many of these actual things had already been developed before, so in many cases it's the spread to a larger number of civs that is the thing that makes the period special, not the invention of the stuff. And when it hadn't been developed before elsewhere, an invention almost as advanced as the inventions that appeared in the region in the period had already been developed in the same region shortly before.

Other reasons
- Hotter climate (I however question this because would Middle east climate changes really be as important as Northern Europe climate changes?)

[Watchman]

I'm not sure the basic iron-shod plow was all *that* important - not the way the much later heavy deep-turning plow which allowed the heavy loam regions of Europe to be effectively farmed ("and had more influence on European history than any Napoleon or Charlemagne") was, for example.

Iron, being a far cheaper metal to make tools from than bronze, must however have had very considerable economic impact. By what I've read of it bronze was something of a luxury good, and in a sense the Bronze Age was still partially Late Stone Age as most folks had to make do without it. Iron is *way* more readily available, so its introduction ought to have pretty much shattered the old power relations and status structures.


Why did it end? In Roman time there was a lot of iron + trade + everything.Climate conjecturals, partly. The Late Antiquity period was one of global regression, unrest and collapsing empires when the weather got colder and the vast population base and ecology the earlier warm upswing had fostered was no longer fully sustainable.

Sheer organizational entropy, incessant civil strife and disease migrations (ie. new and never before seen plagues arriving in the region) did their part as far as Europe is concerned, too.

[Kraxis]

Why did it end? In Roman time there was a lot of iron + trade + everything. But people were not that creative. And today. At least the western coutries have enought food and time and iron.
It wasn't as if they stopped. They merely looked at other fields, architecture, city planning, infrastructure... They were perhaps not as academic but they kept their creativity.
In late antiquity it was another matter, but still people still thought about life and wrote about it, just to an even lesser extent as what they knew began to crumble around them.

[master of the puppets]

ok i'm back, basiclly what i was saying was that iron introduced something that there was little of before, free time. the plow meant less time farming, the iron ax took less time to chop wood, iron weapons meant less insentive fpor war but in some cases provoked it. iron made working quicker and gave time for playing and story-telling and thinking which quickly brought the the basic human intelligence up a notch. its the difference between a chimp and lemur, lemur spends 75% of its waking time looking for food and eating, a chimpanzee which has more food spends about 40%. the rest is devoted to play which stimulates the brain. so the philosophical revolution can be directly related to the how much time humans could spend on such matters.

it may also indicate a break in society, where prior to this kings were kings but besides them almost everyone was a worker of some kind, only a few could afford to do nothing, but around this time the classes of rich and poor grew more seperate, the poor became laboring farmers devoted to the earth to survive, while others, rich merchants could afford to have free time, so they or there sons may start to like at life in a certain view aka. philosophy.

[Franconicus]

Puppetmaster,

if you are right, and I assume you are, then we should be much better than the guys then. How many hours do we have to work to get food, house, cloths ...? We have much more time spend. But I know hardly anybody who is able to compete with Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Arimethes, Thales, Aristoteles, ... .
Maybe we are just waiting our time?

[Watchman]

"It's not what you have, but how you use it" as the old chestnut goes.

On the other hand, a modern middle-class Westerner in some quite fundamental ways lives in more comfort and luxury than the kings of previous eras. He or she is also most of the time fully literate and by the standards of bygone ages extremely well educated. Should he or she decide to devote time to such pursuits, there's no real limit to how much sheer education and knowledge a person can accumulate.

Whether it can be processed into something useful is a bit another question, and highly dependent upon the individual.

[Vladimir]

What kind of soil did the Greeks farm in? I'm assuming that it was the lighter, higher soil that Roman civilizations favored. There was a lot of resistance to the heavy iron plowing techniques which unlocked the potential of the fertile, lower regions. While of course even a light, iron plow would increase farming efficiency it wouldn't do too much if the animals weren't shod and they were still farming in poor soil. The slave based economies of many ancient civilizations discouraged this development.

[Kraxis]

Puppetmaster,

if you are right, and I assume you are, then we should be much better than the guys then. How many hours do we have to work to get food, house, cloths ...? We have much more time spend. But I know hardly anybody who is able to compete with Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Arimethes, Thales, Aristoteles, ... .
Maybe we are just waiting our time?
Maybe we are wasting out time... But look at the personalities we have had in the recent centuries. They easily topple those people. Einstein, Hawkings, Bohr, Newton, Decartes, Freud... I could go on with philosophers, moralists and inventors (a very important branch as they are what drives the progress).

Do you really think we are comparable to the 700BC peasant in what we think and do? Yes, we are better than the average 700BC peasant. Out best people might not be better than Socrates or Plato, but we have many more that are equal.
You can't argue that nobody has done similar acts as to what they did, as we all still start at the level of the 700BC peasant or less, and we still have to progress beyond Socrates to do something more. We get help, but the progress within philosophy for isntance in fairly slow, though it has been progressing supremely faster than it ever did from Socrates to Aristotle.

[conon394]

The slave based economies of many ancient civilizations discouraged this development.


The Greeks were not farming in conditions remotely like Northern Europe why use a technology not suited for their soil? Rather than deeper plowing the Greek method of yield improvement seems rather to have been one of adding fruit and vine crops. As for the use of a heavy plough, the Roman seem to have used it were appropriate in Northern Europe, how did slaves retard its adoption?

[Vladimir]

The Greeks were not farming in conditions remotely like Northern Europe why use a technology not suited for their soil? Rather than deeper plowing the Greek method of yield improvement seems rather to have been one of adding fruit and vine crops. As for the use of a heavy plough, the Roman seem to have used it were appropriate in Northern Europe, how did slaves retard its adoption?

I was referring to the comment about iron being used to increase agricultural output spurring this growth of civilization. In order for this to happen the increase would need to be significant. In order for it to happen in the first place the need would be necessary as well. If an iron shod plow wasn't much better vs. existing technology then there wouldn’t be much of an increase. Tree and fruit crops aren't nearly as productive as cereal crops.

Slave driven economies discouraged the use of animal, wind, steam, or water power because they used slaves. A slave economy retards innovation because you don't need to improve technology to increase production; you just need, more slaves. It also causes people to consider manual labor a task for "lesser" people (look at the US South or colonial Spain as examples). The full potential of the heavy plow was realized after the Roman era once animal's hoofs were properly protected and after the development of the horse collar.

[Samurai Waki]

yeah, but when the **** hits the fan, and society as we know it collapses, I think having a 700bc mentality would be better for survival.

[Watchman]

I fail to see the value in adapting a 700 BC mentality just for the off chance the society as we know it happened to collapse. Sounds kinda like slaughtering most of your cows just because someone might steal them otherwise. :dizzy2:

[Samurai Waki]

exactley. I've slaughtered 3 herds of my cows, just because I thought my neighbor farmer might try to russel them to dodge city and sell them each for a dime.

[Watchman]

For each his own, I guess.

[Atilius]

It can't be trade...

Prior to this age both Halicarnassus and Gordion were major tradinghubs...We don't hear much of them because what we have preserved is what the Greeks wrote of them.

I'm arguing that trade was especially favorable for the transmission of ideas during this period because for the first time there was a significant overlap in trade among the Mediterranean, Persian, Nile, and Indus civilizations.



To say it was the trade that did it would mean we would think Greek trade was more important because it was Greek. That can't be right.


I'm not saying this. Anyone involved in trade at this time would have had a opportunity to benefit: Greeks, Persians, Indians, and others.

I don't mean to say that trade must result in the development of new modes of thought. I simply think that involvement in trade was the most important factor. It's also the only factor which could explain the simultaneous advances in the Mediterranean, Persian, Indian, and (perhaps) Chinese worlds. Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but I doubt it.



But this of course also demanded some sort of personal freedom an in Greece at least, that was exactly what was happening... The first Greek philosophers came about during the various tyranies.


You're getting at cultural conditions required for developing new ideas. I agree that this is vital, but was not prepared (and won't ever be) to compare cultural conditions fostering the advances I listed in my post in the Greek, Persian, Indian, and Chinese worlds.

Unique cultural characteristics probably explain why the Greeks were doing something different than the Persians, Indians, and Chinese during the Axial Age. Their speculations were not religious in nature, and they showed a much greater interest in the structure and behavior of the physical world.

[Byzantine Prince]

If we are talking about individuals each culture had then it is surely a coincidence, because we all know that such people made themselves more than anything. If we are talking about culture in general the year 500 is misleading because Greece had a great amount of culture afterwards and before, and so did China and India.

Incredible men like Socrates and Confucius existed everywhere in the world, because they made themselves who they were and in turn changed the world with their ideas. It is sad that only a few of these incredible men are known to us. I wish history was written better and there were less wars to destroy the important works of art in this world. Philosophy being the zenith of art of course.

[Watchman]

Philosophy being the zenith of art of course.At least according to philosophers. :inquisitive:

[conon394]

I was referring to the comment about iron being used to increase agricultural output spurring this growth of civilization. In order for this to happen the increase would need to be significant. In order for it to happen in the first place the need would be necessary as well. If an iron shod plow wasn't much better vs. existing technology then there wouldn’t be much of an increase. Tree and fruit crops aren't nearly as productive as cereal crops.

I was commenting on your suggestion that there was some kind of resistance to the heavy plough. I don’t see any resistance, the Greeks simply did not need a heavy plough, and the Romans adopted and developed one as soon as they started operating in Northern Europe. Did the Romans produce de-novo a fully operational medieval plough circa AD 1200, obviously not; but they did adopt heavy ploughs in places where they were needed and refined them substantially by the 4th century AD.

You might also consider that while iron as applied to plows might not lead to greater crop productivity, iron tools might well have reduced the amount of labor needed for other farming tasks (tree felling etc).


Slave driven economies discouraged the use of animal, wind, steam, or water power because they used slaves. A slave economy retards innovation because you don't need to improve technology to increase production; you just need, more slaves. It also causes people to consider manual labor a task for "lesser" people (look at the US South or colonial Spain as examples). The full potential of the heavy plow was realized after the Roman era once animal's hoofs were properly protected and after the development of the horse collar.

I don’t think you can demonstrate that in that proposition in the classical world. Water power (mills) and water lifting (screws, pumps, etc) appear in the Hellenistic Greek World in the 3rd century BC. All of theses technologies subsequently diffused widely throughout the Roman Empire. Water mills and water powered ore crushers are a typical feature of the very large Imperial era mines that also use large scale slave labor.
Horse shoes and collars are a somewhat irrelevant, since the Romans used oxen to pull their heavy plows in Northern Europe, not horses. The horse collar is certainly a very useful invention if you want to use horses for ploughs, but it is not the only harness that can be used. The Romans world showed a rather steady development of harness types and certainly had harnesses that were as effective as the breast-strap. Overall I say Hellenistic and Roman world showed quite a bit of technical advancement glass-blowing, the crane, chain gearing, ratcheted gears, differential gearing, significant development in things like sail types, harbor construction, etc.

Looking down on manual laborers, crafts, and tradesmen (by Aristocrats and the landed gentry) hardly stopped with the end of classical slavery. The great bulk of much of the ancient literary evidence was written by and for the ‘Good and the Beautiful’ as the Greeks would say, not the Hoi-polloi. The evidence from votive offering, and tombstones hardly suggest the working classes of the ancient world though of themselves has doing deeming work, just because slaves also often did the same work.

[Papewaio]

Philosophy being the zenith of art of course.

Philosophy being the nadir of science of course. :laugh4:

[Franconicus]

Incredible men like Socrates and Confucius existed everywhere in the world, because they made themselves who they were and in turn changed the world with their ideas. It is sad that only a few of these incredible men are known to us. I wish history was written better and there were less wars to destroy the important works of art in this world. Philosophy being the zenith of art of course.
B.P.,
Can you tell me the names of people who were able to compete with the Greek philosophers. I do not mean in business or technology, but in thinking and changing the picture of the world. Let's say from 20th century. I know that there a some, but compared to the number of people that is very limited, and most of them are physisists ~D .

[Watchman]

Although it doesn't exactly count as a merit of any single person, mechanical tools for measuring the passing of time (ie. clocks, and later watches), urbanization and salaried jobs (paid more or less by the hour) have over the centuries changed the way we view the very time (linear time as opposed to the old cyclic "mythical" time perception). Then there's those astrologers whose discoveries changed our perceptions of the universe, the Earth, the solar system... The developement of archeology, paleontology etc. and evolutionary theories has altered the way we view ourself, our past and our future. Then there's the analytical human sciences - for example psychology and the social sciences - that have changed our understanding of our inner and collective workings and "the art of being human." Although somewhat obscure, the higher-end theoretical physics thinking that was already at full tilt at the beginning of the 20th century delves deep into the workings of time and the universe itself; Einstein is no doubt a name everyone recognizes, but there were and are many others.

The ancient Greek philosophers get points for spirited attempt, though.

[Franconicus]

There is Planck, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg (maybe Bohr, too)
Of cause Freud, too.
(Please note, most of them are physicists and all are German :2thumbsup: )
From former time: Galileo, Kopernikus, Darwin, who else?

[nokhor]

B.P.,
Can you tell me the names of people who were able to compete with the Greek philosophers. I do not mean in business or technology, but in thinking and changing the picture of the world. Let's say from 20th century. I know that there a some, but compared to the number of people that is very limited, and most of them are physisists ~D .


i would argue hitler, gandhi, lenin, all changed how people thought and changed the picture of the world.

[Byzantine Prince]

B.P.,
Can you tell me the names of people who were able to compete with the Greek philosophers. I do not mean in business or technology, but in thinking and changing the picture of the world. Let's say from 20th century. I know that there a some, but compared to the number of people that is very limited, and most of them are physisists ~D .
There are more modern philosophers that are known to us than ancient greek ones. NOTE: The time period of 500 BC had much less people then the modern age.

Here's some:
Mortimer J. Adler 1902 - 2001
Theodor Adorno 1903 - 1969
Samuel Alexander 1859 - 1938
William Ames 1576 - 1633
Henri Frederic Amiel 1821 - 1881
Gaston Bachelard 1884 - 1962
Francis Bacon 1561 - 1626
James Mark Baldwin 1861 - 1934
Jeremy Bentham 1748 - 1832
George Berkeley 1685 - 1753
Isaiah Berlin 1909 - 1997
Annie Besant 1847 - 1933
Sissela Bok 1934 -
Robert Boyle 1627 - 1691
John Bradshaw -
Norman O. Brown 1913 - 2002
Giordano Bruno 1548 - 1600
Jean de la Bruyere 1645 - 1696
Martin Buber 1878 - 1965
Albert Camus 1913 - 1960
Thomas Carlyle 1795 - 1881
David Chalmers 1966 -
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin 1881 - 1955
Pierre Charron -
Deepak Chopra -
Emile M. Cioran 1911 - 1995
Robin G. Collingwood 1889 - 1943
Victor Cousin 1792 - 1867
Gilles Deleuze 1925 - 1995
Daniel Dennett 1942 -
Jacques Derrida 1930 - 2004
John Dewey 1859 - 1952
Meister Eckhart 1260 - 1328
Jose Ortega y Gasset 1883 - 1955
Baltasar Gracian 1601 - 1658
Theodor Haecker -
Manly Hall -
Francis Herbert Hedge 1846 - 1924
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1770 - 1831
Claud-Adrian Helvetius 1715 - 1771
Thomas Hobbes 1588 - 1679
David Hume 1711 - 1776
William James 1842 - 1910
Immanuel Kant 1724 - 1804
Walter Kaufmann 1921 - 1980
Pir Vilayat Khan 1916 -
Soren Kierkegaard 1813 - 1855
Saul Kripke 1940 -
Jiddu Krishnamurti 1895 - 1986
Susanne K. Langer 1895 - 1985
Gottfried Leibniz 1646 - 1716
George Henry Lewes -
John Locke 1632 - 1704
Bernard Mandeville 1670 - 1773
Herbert Marcuse 1898 - 1979
Jacques Maritain 1882 - 1973
Karl Marx 1818 - 1883
Moses Mendelssohn 1729 - 1786
John Stuart Mill 1806 - 1873
George Edward Moore 1873 - 1958
Henry More 1614 - 1687
Friedrich Nietzsche 1844 - 1900
Blaise Pascal 1623 - 1662
Charles Peguy 1873 - 1914
Robert M. Pirsig 1928 -
Karl Popper 1902 - 1994
Richard Price 1723 - 1791
Ernest Renan 1823 - 1892
Paul Ricoeur 1913 - 2005
Richard Rorty 1931 -
Jean Jacques Rousseau 1712 - 1778
Bertrand Russell 1872 - 1970
George Santayana 1863 - 1952
Jean-Paul Sartre 1905 - 1980
Friedrich von Schelling 1775 - 1854
Arthur Schopenhauer 1788 - 1860
Roger Scruton 1944 -
Henry Sidgwick 1838 - 1900
Peter Singer 1946 -
Herbert Spencer 1820 - 1903
Oswald Spengler 1880 - 1936
Baruch Spinoza 1632 - 1677
Max Stirner 1806 - 1856
Raoul Vaneigem 1934 -
Giambattista Vico 1668 - 1744
Alan W. Watts 1915 - 1973
Alan Watts 1915 - 1973
Simone Weil 1909 - 1943
Otto Weininger 1880 - 1903
William Whewell 1794 - 1866
Benjamin Whichcote 1609 - 1683
Ken Wilber 1949 -
Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889 - 1951

There, are you happy now? If happen to read all the work written by all these men, maybe you deserve to be a politician, because I am sure you are going to be profoundly better then any other human being.

[Kraxis]

There is Planck, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg (maybe Bohr, too)
Of cause Freud, too.
(Please note, most of them are physicists and all are German :2thumbsup: )
From former time: Galileo, Kopernikus, Darwin, who else?
Oh my dear Franc... You do of course know that Niels Bohr was Danish right? So I must assume you are playing the old HRE vassal card in relation to Denmark.~;p

[Rosacrux redux]

Freud and Einstein were jewish, no?

[Franconicus]

Oh my dear Franc... You do of course know that Niels Bohr was Danish right? So I must assume you are playing the old HRE vassal card in relation to Denmark.~;p
Did I hurt your sentiments. I really did not want to and I appologize for my misleading declaration. Didn't I write that most of them were German? Let me announce that neither Bohr, nor Darwin, nor Galileo is, was or ever will be German!


Freud and Einstein were jewish, no?

So what! They were German and Jewish. (O.k., Freud was Austrian, but that was only a kind of subform of German, so in fact he was German too.)
There was no antagonism in being German and Jewish. They spoke German and they thought German. Many famous Germans were Jewish in fact. (And many Jewish were German, in fact, too). The Nazis tried to make it an antogonism. We shouldn't follow their reasoning, should we?

[Rosacrux redux]

Just kidding, don't come down on me laddy!

On a relevant note, talking about philosophy: I'd like to point out that in ancient times being a philosopher, meant also being a "scientist". Philosophos means "lover of wisdom" and "wisdom" wasn't confined in abstract thinking (today's philosophy) or utilitarian thinking (today's science). Wisdom was knowledge, and critical thinking and constant evolution.

On another relevant note:
Nobody - and I mean NOBODY - in history has shaped the world in the way Aristotle's thinking did, no? All major versions of Christianity, other more (Protestantic doctrines) and other less (Catholics, Orthodoxes) are based on Aristotle, the whole Western way of thinking is based on Aristotle.

Is there any other philosopher who can claim such Influence? Someone might argue Confucius for the easteners, but I'd say they today are moving in more and more Western (Aristotelian) directions.