Paul wrote:Curtis

It's actually just a simpler question, I'm not trying to "trick" anyone here, nor have I implied anywhere that Schmdit is saying that Eudoxus was the founder of astrology. But Schmidt is saying that Eudoxus is the founder of X, and I'm replacing X with something else, in this case geometry.

But if it makes you feel more comfortable, let me ask a different way:
In a like manner, would you consider Euclid the founder of Greek Geometry?

For example people will sometimes refer to Euclid as the father of geometry (or Greek geometry if you prefer it), but would we say that Euclid was the founder of (Greek) geometry? If not, is there a distinction here to Eudoxus and astrology that we could parallel?

Of course if I wanted to be exacting I could say I am being more lenient to Schmidt than not - a better way of wording it could have been to ask if someone was the founder of Greek mathematics as a whole. Schmidt isn't saying some sub-branch of Greek astrology like aspect doctrine, or the use of the zodiac etc. but being broad and inclusive as Greek astrology as a whole. I could do likewise and refer to the broader apparatus in which geometry works in the same manner and say mathematics. But my point isn't to trip up you or Schmidt - my 'nice try's are a lot nicer than you may give me credit and the only 'try' I'm attempting is to understand what Schmidt (or others who follow him) mean by the term. Let's keep giving one another the benefit of the doubt.

To Paul Kiernan, regarding what it means to be a "founder", from Anonymous (of Facebook).

Your analogy of astrology with geometry, and of the claim of a putative founder of astrology to the claim of Euclid as the founder of geometry, is not apt. The reason is because geometry cannot be compared to astrology in that way. I understand why you think it can, because you primarily see astrology as a set of tools and techniques accumulated over time. Just as in mathematics various contributors discover new theorems out of the axioms, or introduce new definitions, etc, so too, astrologers discover new empirical correlations, introduce new ways of looking at charts, etc. We do not see Greek astrology as merely being that kind of technical art, although mathematics plays a very important role in it, and not just for calculating planetary positions, but at a deep theoretical level, as you will soon see. While mathematics has its own metaphysical presuppositions, the examination of which lies outside its own scope and for which it depends on philosophy, it does not by itself propound a cosmological doctrine, and that is the key difference. Mathematics is not quite philosophy, as Kant points out in the Critique of Pure Reason, though they can be used in each other's service quite profitably and justifiably.

A much better analogy would be to the founder of a religion or a branch of philosophy, such as Buddha as the founder of Buddhism, Zoroaster as the founder of Zoroastrianism, Plato as the founder of Platonism, Epicurus as the founder of Epicureanism, and last but not least, Pythagoras as the founder of Pythagoreanism. Religions and philosophical schools have foundational theologies and principles that may be introduced by a single person over a short period of time, and cannot merely be added to arbitrarily, and without regard to the founding principles, without turning it into something else. I trust that you understand what it means to be a "founder" in that sense, and that is the sense Bob is conveying here. If that is still unclear to you, then it seems to me you are merely engaging in sophistical refutations by trying to attack the use of everyday language that we all depend on to communicate as humans, in order to distract others from the actual content of the argument.

zoidsoft wrote:Paul,

I was originally given permission to post these unattributed, but I wasn't comfortable doing that. It seems that you are evading the content of these ideas by using the ad-hominem fallacy for cover, just as Chris Brennan did on FB over the issue of the apparent contradiction between statements by Cicero and Pliny.

Paul wrote:

zoidsoft wrote:Paul,

I was originally given permission to post these unattributed, but I wasn't comfortable doing that. It seems that you are evading the content of these ideas by using the ad-hominem fallacy for cover, just as Chris Brennan did on FB over the issue of the apparent contradiction between statements by Cicero and Pliny.

Hi Curtis

I'm okay with whatever conclusion you want to draw from my approach. Perhaps you are the same, but when I was a child, regularly there would be some other kids who would have some argument or irritation or be too cool, but there would end up being a situation where one kid tells another kid what some other child had said or believed. Apparently that child whilst not wanting to communicate to anyone directly (for whatever reason) still wanted to be heard. I wasn't too enamoured with this acting through an intermediary as a child, and am even less inclined to bother as an adult.

To repeat myself - if Anonymous has something he thinks is important enough to listen to, it's surely important enough to state in his/her own stead rather than someone else's. I don't have any inclination to communicate to someone via someone else. You can take what you want from that about avoiding anything. There's nothing ad hominem in saying let's all talk in openness and not with hostility and through intermediaries. That's all I'm willing to say about that.

james_m wrote:curtis,

what planet do these folks live on where they can't come down and speak with ordinary earthlings at skyscript? sorry curtis, but i see it the same way as paul here.. the fact someone is reading the contents of thread and can't comment directly shines a weird light on them doing it thru an intermediary.. you are a secretary for them? it seems very weird either way...

It is usually OK to include small quotes or small extracts from books/articles for the purposes of making an argument, but always remember to acknowledge your source, and include page references where appropriate.

Martin Gansten wrote:Just as a note in the margin of this discussion, I'd like to point out that, as a historian of religion, I think it highly problematic to identify the Buddha as the founder of Buddhism, or Plato as the founder of Platonism, etc. Establishing the degree to which these and other thinkers (even when we know or assume them to be actual historical persons) built on pre-existing ideas and traditions, and disentangling their own teachings from the versions of their later (sometimes even contemporaneous) followers, often borders on the impossible. Quite often, the most we can honestly say is that someone was an important enough figure in the history of a tradition of ideas to have had his name attached to it. (In the case of Eudoxus and astrology, even that seems not to be the case.)

Martin Gansten wrote:Just as a note in the margin of this discussion, I'd like to point out that, as a historian of religion, I think it highly problematic to identify the Buddha as the founder of Buddhism, or Plato as the founder of Platonism, etc. Establishing the degree to which these and other thinkers (even when we know or assume them to be actual historical persons) built on pre-existing ideas and traditions, and disentangling their own teachings from the versions of their later (sometimes even contemporaneous) followers, often borders on the impossible. Quite often, the most we can honestly say is that someone was an important enough figure in the history of a tradition of ideas to have had his name attached to it. (In the case of Eudoxus and astrology, even that seems not to be the case.)

zoidsoft wrote:I would submit to you that "Greek astrology" has a peculiar "eidos" or archetype that gives it a unique signature.