500 B.c.

[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.

[Papewaio]

Philosophy being the zenith of art of course.

Philosophy being the nadir of science of course.

[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 .

[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 )
From former time: Galileo, Kopernikus, Darwin, who else?

[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 )
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.

[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.

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?

[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 .

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 .

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.

[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.