Home was not where the heart was for the Enlightenment’s intellectuals | Hacker News Reader

Home was not where the heart was for the Enlightenment’s intellectuals

spectator.co.uk

54 pointsThevet24 comments

Pythagoras was a child prodigy who traveled the world with the desire to meet all the wisest in each land. He then assembled the knowledge into what he called "philosophy". Integrating empirical science and communal spirituality, he taught that the "cosmos" is made of math.

Source: Iamblichus, "Life of Pythagoras"

I kind of agree with Pythagoras there.

It's less strange if you call it ma-the-matica, as in the-ology, pan-the-on, ...

you can think of it that way, but, etymologically, it is unrelated to those words. the root "mathema" is more like "learning" or "knowledge".

Pythagoras had two types of students, the akoustikoi and the mathematikoi. The latter had to take a 5 year vow of silence and live communally. Both men and women -- and mixed races (specifically the Mongolian "visiting scholar", Abaris)

Recent scholarship (Creese, Zhmud, Barker) attributes to the mathematikoi the first hypothesis-driven experiments in the history of science -- testing theories of Consonance and Dissonance.

Can you cite the claim that Abaris came from Mongolia? Whoever would make such a claim is speaking far too confidently. The details provided in the actual Greek sources are ambiguous and could apply to anywhere in northern Eurasia.

Yes! Def. It is Peter Kingsley's new book, "a story waiting to pierce you". It is very, very good.

Alright, I see. I hope you understand that this book, published in New Age circles, is a not a reputable work on history or even a reasonable pop-sci distillation thereof. Consequently, I feel it is irresponsible to make the claim in the post above.

Not so! Kinglsey is a great scholar and respected as such. This book is extremely well referenced -- more than half the book is notes and references. It also has a blurb from Walter Burkett just before he died. Yes, it's not standard history -- and he takes a spiritual perspective. But it is extremely appropriate for the subject matter.

Impuning the book because it is published in new age circles is unfair. I recommend refreshing your perspective by reading "esotericism in the academy" by Wouter Hanagraaf. Or, "western esotericism: a guide for the perplexed"

> Kinglsey is a great scholar and respected as such

He is not however respected as a historian or archaeologist of Northern Eurasia, which would allow him to claim that any figure in Greek history came specifically from Mongolia. If he says in the book that this is merely his own speculation, that would be fine, but the fact is that speculation is all it would be.

> I recommend refreshing your perspective by reading "esotericism in the academy" by Wouter Hanagraaf. Or, "western esotericism: a guide for the perplexed"

Esoteric philosophy and its validity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the historical–archaeological claim that you made in your post above.

> Esoteric philosophy and its validity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the historical–archaeological claim that you made in your post above.

I mentioned the work on esotericism in history in reference to the dismissal of kinglsey on the basis of new age affiliation.

And speculation can be essential for creating plausible narratives in a world with limited data. But I agree, speculation should always be labeled!

Posting Kingsley's Wikipedia as an intro: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kingsley_(scholar)

And, to be clear, I'm not referring to the country of Mongolia today, but to the extent of the historical culture of the nomadic people of the steppes.

Good for Pythagoras. But according to George Harrison "the farther one travels the less one knows".

(Apparently he was quoting Laozi)

Sure, you’ll know much more than before you left but realize how little you actually know compared to how much there is to know.

Harrison said it better but it seems to be confusing? Me being explicit probably didn’t help.

I see the statement as making the case for an idealist philosophical perspective. I.e. the subject that we're really exploring is the human mind, not the universe.

Of course you don't have to agree with that. To me it seems clear that we can explore the universe, or at least get real close. But it's easy to see the value of an anthropocentric perspective. At the end of the day we're stuck being human.

Sounds like Erdos to me.

Is there any data on this? Seems to make sense but I don’t think the greatest intellectuals of the past centuries say Newton, Mozart, Einstein, were avidly interested in traveling. And even if they were, they could only reach a very small fraction of what we can reach nowadays with planes.

Einstein was not enlightenment intellectual. He lived well after that period and was more of physicist. He did travel from Germany to united states, through not for fun.

In addition to mistiming Einstein, I have never heard Mozart described as an intellectual.

Newton was infamously provincial; even when forced out of Cambridge he just went back to his childhood home (this is also one reason Leibniz's approach dominated continental mathematics). Probably the exception that proves the rule.

I agree. The article smells of confirmation bias.

I disagree with you. One of the unusual, perhaps unique features of Western civilization is the great hunger for direct knowledge of other societies and other parts of the natural world outside the West. Think for instance of Herodotus.

If I remember correctly, Immanuel Kant never got very far from East Prussia.

When I travel and speak to locals, they are often very open and honest. Both when I lightly press them for information on their condition, hopes and aspirations - and when they are just happy to confide in and share something personal with a complete stranger just passing through. Many touching moments, often more memorable and enlightening than the beautiful places I visit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com