The Greeks since the fifth century had the tools and capacity and
philosophical sophistication to introduce scientific revolution. All we
know about their knowledge is probably only a fraction of what they
knew. Why Archimedes couldn’t be the ancient Galileo? Archimedes did
not have problem to fight church to distribute his knowledge. He knew
mathematics at least as good as Galileo. And he has done many
technological inventions. Was it because of lack of printing machine
that Galileo used so successfully? Even if murdered by Romans, they were
interested in his knowledge, and most probably he had followers who
were aware of his findings and his books where in their disposition. If
Eutocius of Ascalon wrote about his work more than 700 years latter, his
work had to been far from forgotten. And it is well known, he was not
the only great mathematician and inventor of the classical world, far
from it. Lucretius poem of “On the Nature of Things”, amazing as it
can be, may be only fraction of what the Greeks discovered by system of
meditation and deductive reasoning. And yet they had not done it into
the modernity. The claim that in society of slaves there is no need
for technological inventions seems to me folly. If not for economic
reasons, the Roman war machine and probably also the Greek one needed
military technology as much as we do. In contrary, Roman society, was
free enough to support technological initiative, definitely more than
the renaissance society in western Europe.
If there is any answer to the question why the Greeks and Romans did
not do it to the modernity, even if they had almost 1000 years from the
first philosophers until the Christianity closed on their knowledge, it
seems to me modern scientific technological development was a pure
accident. Several factors came together in the right time, somewhere in
the mid thirteen century, which started with the black death plague
decimation of European population, that brought huge social and economic
upheavals. Then the Mongol invasion weekend the Muslim world and
reduced the military pressure from the Christian Europe, at the same
time the classic philosophers following the christian conquest of Spain
was rediscovered. Exactly in these years Fibonacci introduced
mathematical revolution partly imported from the Arabs and partly
developed by him. Some importance played probably the fact that Italy
was a country of competing city states rather than one autocratic
statehood, as was the Roman empire. Add to it the new Gothic
architecture just recently introduced, invention of perspective and some
more major events that i haven’t mention and you have completely new
tools to judge the reality of the being. The result is new European
perspective of understanding the earthly reality and the way to the new
knowledge was opened for the scholars and intellectuals, Yet these new
discoveries could go easily down of the drainage of the history, if not
the patronage of Medici and some other Italian rulers, who competed with
each other on prestige, but non of them had the absolute power to
overcome the others. Probably without this, these very first discoveries
wouldn’t continue to thrive.
Many start the modern way of thinking with Copernicus. I don’t agree
with them. The idea of heliocentric world was probably quite widespread
in the classical world. Even if Copernicus ideas helped to shake the
dogmas of the church, it couldn’t make a scientific revolution by
itself. To my opinion after Galileo and Kepler, who both connected
mathematics to empiric data, the road to the modern scientific method
was paved. So the question remains, how come, the Greeks did not succeed
to produce within a whole millennia, what the Europeans had in few
hundred years? And lets not forget that the renaissance scholars needed
to overcome the burden of religious dogmatic thinking tradition, the
classical Greeks did not had to cope with?
As to the findings of Kepler, they happened because of several
fortunate sequential events. Brahe Tycho had to die, so Kepler could
inherit his observations. If not he would remain probably with his
esoteric theory of perfect spheres of planet movements. Also he needed a
crazy king like Rudolph II, who was rather strange for a catholic
emperor of holly Roman Empire. Then you had the accidental discovery of
telescope, Galileo copied and redeveloped. There had to be such an
arrogant self possessed man like Galileo, who so strongly believed, that
the circumstantial evidence is verified proof for heliocentric
planetary system, that he opposed all the Catholic establishment.
Someone less self possessed wouldn’t do it all the way.
Modern science is based on connection and verification of
philosophical (mainly ontological) understandings derived from rational
reasoning with the empirical evidence, translated to practical
technological achievements. The Greeks did not make this two necessary
step far enough, and this is the source of their failure. Why they have
not done it, this still has to be answered.
Why Archimedes couldn’t be the ancient Galileo? Archimedes did not have problem to fight church to distribute his knowledge. He knew mathematics at least as good as Galileo. And he has done many technological inventions. Was it because of lack of printing machine that Galileo used so successfully? Even if murdered by Romans, they were interested in his knowledge, and most probably he had followers who were aware of his findings and his books where in their disposition. If Eutocius of Ascalon wrote about his work more than 700 years latter, his work had to been far from forgotten. And it is well known, he was not the only great mathematician and inventor of the classical world, far from it.
Lucretius poem of “On the Nature of Things”, amazing as it can be, may be only fraction of what the Greeks discovered by system of meditation and deductive reasoning. And yet they had not done it into the modernity.
The claim that in society of slaves there is no need for technological inventions seems to me folly. If not for economic reasons, the Roman war machine and probably also the Greek one needed military technology as much as we do. In contrary, Roman society, was free enough to support technological initiative, definitely more than the renaissance society in western Europe.
If there is any answer to the question why the Greeks and Romans did not do it to the modernity, even if they had almost 1000 years from the first philosophers until the Christianity closed on their knowledge, it seems to me modern scientific technological development was a pure accident. Several factors came together in the right time, somewhere in the mid thirteen century, which started with the black death plague decimation of European population, that brought huge social and economic upheavals. Then the Mongol invasion weekend the Muslim world and reduced the military pressure from the Christian Europe, at the same time the classic philosophers following the christian conquest of Spain was rediscovered. Exactly in these years Fibonacci introduced mathematical revolution partly imported from the Arabs and partly developed by him. Some importance played probably the fact that Italy was a country of competing city states rather than one autocratic statehood, as was the Roman empire. Add to it the new Gothic architecture just recently introduced, invention of perspective and some more major events that i haven’t mention and you have completely new tools to judge the reality of the being. The result is new European perspective of understanding the earthly reality and the way to the new knowledge was opened for the scholars and intellectuals, Yet these new discoveries could go easily down of the drainage of the history, if not the patronage of Medici and some other Italian rulers, who competed with each other on prestige, but non of them had the absolute power to overcome the others. Probably without this, these very first discoveries wouldn’t continue to thrive.
Many start the modern way of thinking with Copernicus. I don’t agree with them. The idea of heliocentric world was probably quite widespread in the classical world. Even if Copernicus ideas helped to shake the dogmas of the church, it couldn’t make a scientific revolution by itself. To my opinion after Galileo and Kepler, who both connected mathematics to empiric data, the road to the modern scientific method was paved. So the question remains, how come, the Greeks did not succeed to produce within a whole millennia, what the Europeans had in few hundred years? And lets not forget that the renaissance scholars needed to overcome the burden of religious dogmatic thinking tradition, the classical Greeks did not had to cope with?
As to the findings of Kepler, they happened because of several fortunate sequential events. Brahe Tycho had to die, so Kepler could inherit his observations. If not he would remain probably with his esoteric theory of perfect spheres of planet movements. Also he needed a crazy king like Rudolph II, who was rather strange for a catholic emperor of holly Roman Empire. Then you had the accidental discovery of telescope, Galileo copied and redeveloped. There had to be such an arrogant self possessed man like Galileo, who so strongly believed, that the circumstantial evidence is verified proof for heliocentric planetary system, that he opposed all the Catholic establishment. Someone less self possessed wouldn’t do it all the way.
Modern science is based on connection and verification of philosophical (mainly ontological) understandings derived from rational reasoning with the empirical evidence, translated to practical technological achievements. The Greeks did not make this two necessary step far enough, and this is the source of their failure. Why they have not done it, this still has to be answered.