Is thinking today the same as it was thousands of years ago? Not according to David Rijser. He looks at the representation of reflection in ancient literature and more recent art in the theme booklet for the Week of the Classics. Our image of the pensive philosopher is culturally determined and not that old.
When we imagine ancient philosophers, they are learned men, possibly sitting and staring ahead and thinking deeply, deeply. A bit like the famous statue The Thinker by Rodin. You hit the nail on the head:this depiction of philosophers was very popular in the nineteenth century, just like the statue, and has not gone away.
Philosophers have not always been viewed in this way, and thinking itself also appears to be subject to change. David Rijser, assistant professor of Classical Languages and Cultural History at the University of Amsterdam, describes these changes succinctly in 'The portico of the neighbours. Imaginations of Thought in Antiquity. This is the theme booklet for this year's Week of Classics with the theme 'What is wisdom? Thinking in the classical world'.
In conversation with your diaphragm
Our way of thinking was not the same as that of the ancient Greeks. The main question of the book is how that thinking in antiquity worked. For the ancient Greeks, thinking was equivalent to talking with their minds, based on ancient texts. As an example, Rijser gives us Homer, who let his characters enter into conversation with parts of their bodies. Thus, the diaphragm was literally consulted when considering decisions. With this he clearly shows that thinking specifically took place in the head and was also solution-oriented.
The ancient philosophers liked to display their knowledge and skills, but facts did not play as great a role as they do today. The stories they could tell using facts were more important. According to the ancient Greeks, the abstract was superior to the concrete. They also saw poetry as more philosophical and serious than the factual enumeration of a historian, according to Rijser:'Poetry is more oriented towards the universal, where the historiography deals with the concrete individual event.' Facts in themselves were the domain of the working people and slaves.
Leaving room for emotion
Featured by the editors
MedicineWhat are the microplastics doing in my sunscreen?!
AstronomySun, sea and science
BiologyExpedition to melting land
The idea of thinking as solution-oriented and practical remained the norm until the Roman Imperial era. For the Romans, according to Rijser, it was never about thinking about thinking:"Thinking about the formation of theories about the state, eloquence, religion, general norms of civilization." The Romans saw Greek philosophers and their followers more as actors. These fanatics who reasoned straight what was crooked could count on admiration but also on irritation.
In addition to the practical way of thinking, there was room for doubt in Latin literature. The Romans thus stood at the cradle of our 'modern' way of thinking. There are not always solutions for everything and the Romans began to describe this inability. They went on a self-examination by asking themselves questions. The author gives a good example of this in the words of the poet Catullus (c. 84 -c. 50 BC):I hate and love her. Why, you will ask? I do not know. I can feel it happening and it will destroy me.
'The triangle of verbs (nescio-sentio-excrusior:I don't know - I feel it - I am tortured by it) beautifully express the elusive alternation of emotions that you experience when you think and feel at the same time. lyrical Ricer. It was only in Latin that the tradition of internal monologues arose that described thoughts that were no longer controlled by reason, but by emotion.
Erotic texts inspired Augustine
The most remarkable conclusion, according to the author himself, unfolds next, on the last page of the booklet. Augustine, one of the most influential Church Fathers in the interpretation of Christian doctrine, expressed his conversations with God in the language of Roman erotic poets such as Catullus. Not practical and solution-oriented, but searching and full of doubt and emotion. Rijser actually stops here at his peak and it's a shame he didn't put more effort into this conclusion.
Fortunately, the lead up to it is also worth reading. Besides the textual changes about thinking, Rijser also shows the changing reputation of philosophers. In their own time, they were not seen as the deep thinkers they became in the nineteenth century. Even the most famous philosopher of antiquity, Socrates, was not appreciated by many contemporaries. Thinkers are unworldly, untrustworthy, unhealthy and unreliable. A little Athenian does sports, walks in the street, talks to people. Intellectuals don't do that at all.'
You only really realize how changeable history is in Rijser's description of Socrates' transformation through the ages:from a provocative savage, with the likeness of a satyr, to a distinguished and wise lord. It just depends on what age you live in how you look at things. That realization makes these kinds of books important to read.