What is the difference between Modern & Ancient Philosophy?
An argument I assisted recently exemplified the nuanced difference between the two which is not solely based on time.
I was listening to an age-old dispute over what is good and bad. One person was disputing that goodness is innate in humans and can be determined from a nature and non nurtured method. We know what is good from the moment of conception. This person’s argument was based on the fact that babies always prefer honey water to bitter water regardless if the infant never drank the former and only tasted something bitter. The other person replied immediately: from a human evolutionary standpoint is it perfectly explainable. Sugar to a non-anatomically modern human was a question for survival and likely explains the development of our sweet tooths; it contains more calories. Bitterness on the other hand, would be resources containing less caloric content — I am no dietician so do correct me if I have faulted.
Arguably, science prevailed over philosophy and is at the heart of the difference between what can be described as modern and “ancient” (or older forms) of philosophy.
Will Durant on Philosophy & the Good Life
In his book The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant delineates his sweeping overview of philosophy into the classical and contemporary philosophers. He states that such a division was required because of as science advanced, it dethroned and answered questions philosophers were scratching their heads about. Our physics took over our metaphysics, or did it?
Let us evaluate this question: what is a good life? For the foundations to this question, science can objectively answer this question. Being healthy which is a function of good nutrition — yes, many landmines ahead in this simple affirmation — physical activity paired and good social relationships are known as scientifically proven to maintain and improve health. Once we depart from these fundamentals, we slowly leave the island of science and head out to the unknown where philosophy thrives. If a good life means happiness, then what is happiness? Can science answer what it is? To some extent, yes, it can. Chemicals released by the brain such as endorphins and dopamine do generate sensations of calm and happiness but this begets the question: what drives these chemical compounds of the brain to be released in the first place?
Besides physical exertions or externally ingested stimulants, do we get natural highs from our physical possessions, our status or perceptions of selves? Science in the physics cannot lend us a hand in answering, but what about the social sciences? Measures such as GDP, the Gini Coefficient or the other economic measures such as saving rates could be proxies for measuring a happy and thus a good life, albeit they seldom do. If this were the case, then developed countries would all be the perfect models for the good life, but statistics such as suicide rates in the countries dictate otherwise.
In this abyss, philosophy becomes our shining beacon of answers to our question. Plato told us a happy and good life rests on living virtuously and through learning — not the accumulation of wealth that sends us down a vicious cycle of desire. Buddhist monks have long preached a life of simplicity and doing no harm onto others. To live compassionately and empathetically with a discipline, patient, and well intentioned. Lao Tzu informing us to flow like water. The stoics to live with objective judgment, unselfish action and willing acceptance of all events — a common pattern among the philosophers of old. This is, to the philosopher, on how to live a good life for as long as science does not have these answers, philosophy will.
We still need philosophy and although there is a distinction between modern and ancient philosophers, so long as humans are still homo sapiens — and not yet homo deus — then there is much value to be derived from the ancients to answer our questions.
