Roochnik's Dangerous Idea

So it has been about a month, and I suppose it’s time for another post, or two. For some time I have been intrigued by the selection of text books for our ancient philosophy class, that is the two main texts, Curd and Roochnik. These are very different from one another and their disparity brings up two interesting topics.

The first is the extent to which Roochnik is presenting an implicit view of the ancients that is smuggled in by the way he organizes his presentation of the material. So far as we have read, Roochnik is viewing the ancients as a linear progression of thought that builds and progresses based on the thinking of each subsequent philosopher. This is apparent in his transitions between philosophers and the framing that he offers between their thought. Not only does he link between the Milesians, which is perhaps less tenuous, but also between completely disparate thinkers including Hesiod and Thales, Heraclitus and Parmenides, etc. This methodology contains implicit assumptions which Roochnik fails to address and in some ways biases his presentation for those who fail to read cautiously.

First, this assumes that indeed there is some progress to the history of ancient philosophical thought. This claim is addressed briefly by Roochnik in his introduction. He claims that he is presenting the material in a chronological and dialectical fashion. Here the dialectical refers to a conversation which describes the evolution of ancient thought. It is this dialectical process which suggests progress though history. Roochnik’s claim seems to rely on the assumption that there was indeed contact between thinkers in antiquity and that they were able to understand their predecessors. While this assumption seems probable in certain cases, i.e. the Milesians, it seems untenable in others, viz. between Heraclitus and Parmenides. Since Roochnik does not offer any real evidence for the transmission of thought among these philosophers, and given the relative timetable of some thinkers, it seems very probable that the dialectical process or conversation between philosophers described by Roochnik breaks down.

Another point of contention is the notion of progress though history. It seems only fitting to refer to Nietzsche and this point. “That the great moments in the struggle of individuals form a chain, that in them the high points of humanity are linked throughout millennia, that which is highest in such a moment of the distant past be for me still alive, bright and great – this is the fundamental thought of the faith of humanity which is expressed in the demand for monumental history.” While it is possible to view history as progressive, indeed there are certain elements of this illustrated in the Milesians, a more compelling overarching view seems to me, to be that presented by Nietzsche. “No, the goal of humanity cannot lie at the end but only in its highest specimens.”

Second, viewing the history of ancient philosophical thought as a progression, corners one’s interpretations within a dogmatic framework. That is, in order to tell a compelling story of the progression of ancient thought, Roochnik must commit himself to certain interpretations of each philosophers thought. In this case, Roochnik is making his reading of a philosopher fit his system or overarching goal of the progress in ancient thought. This seems dishonest since Roochnik is not necessarily presenting the most compelling, reasoned, or accurate reading, but merely one which “fits the story”.