Ancient European Philosophy

[The Hammer]

Where is it? Why does it not exist?

Closest we have is the philosophy of Greece and Rome. Where are the Celtic, Germanic, and Central European philosophers?

We have Ancient Chinese, Iranian, Jewish, and Indian philosophy.

What gives?

 

[Stan77]

Where is it? Why does it not exist?

Closest we have is the philosophy of Greece and Rome. Where are the Celtic, Germanic, and Central European philosophers?

We have Ancient Chinese, Iranian, Jewish, and Indian philosophy.

What gives?

Cuz the ones you're asking about were still swingin' from trees while the others you've listed had refined their intellects.
Sorry, bud

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Where is it? Why does it not exist?

Closest we have is the philosophy of Greece and Rome. Where are the Celtic, Germanic, and Central European philosophers?

We have Ancient Chinese, Iranian, Jewish, and Indian philosophy.

What gives?

Because the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic tribes were still, well, tribal and living more or less nomadic lives focused on surviving. They were also oral cultures and didn't tend to write much. The Druids, for example, were expressly forbidden from writing anything down about their rites or beliefs. All those other cultures you mentioned were settled, literate civilizations. We don't have much from when the archaic Greeks were still living tribally and transmitting their culture orally, either, if you see what I mean.

This does not mean they didn't have intriguing insights about things (we know that "primitive" tribal peoples usually have complex cosmologies and views about life and the world; they're still human and it's just natural to us to wonder about such topics), but rather their cultures were focused more on other pursuits and they didn't write things down.

 

[The Hammer]

Cuz the ones you're asking about were still swingin' from trees while the others you've listed had refined their intellects.
Sorry, bud

Mmk

 

[The Hammer]

Because the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic tribes were still, well, tribal and living more or less nomadic lives focused on surviving. They were also oral cultures and didn't tend to write much. The Druids, for example, were expressly forbidden from writing anything down about their rites or beliefs. All those other cultures you mentioned were settled, literate civilizations. We don't have much from when the archaic Greeks were still living tribally and transmitting their culture orally, either, if you see what I mean.

This does not mean they didn't have intriguing insights about things (we know that "primitive" tribal peoples usually have complex cosmologies and views about life and the world; they're still human and it's just natural to us to wonder about such topics), but rather their cultures were focused more on other pursuits and they didn't write things down.

We have writings/sotroes from the nomadic/tribal oral period of the Indian subcontinent though, take the Vedas as an example. Those were tribal. You are write the druids and such expressly forbid writing things down. And honestly I kind of agree, some things are best not written.

 

[Stan77]

Mmk

Well, some are slow some are fast, ya know. Nothing personal

We have writings from the nomadic/tribal period of the Indian subcontinent though, take the Vedas as an example. Those were tribal.

Incorrect. They were urban and extremely civilized by that time. Check harrapa, for example.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We have writings/sotroes from the nomadic/tribal oral period of the Indian subcontinent though, take the Vedas as an example. Those were tribal. You are write the druids and such expressly forbid writing things down. And honestly I kind of agree, some things are best not written.

India was an old civilization by the time the Vedas were written down. They were originally orally transmitted, yes.

Vedic period - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Cuz the ones you're asking about were still swingin' from trees while the others you've listed had refined their intellects.
Sorry, bud

Well, some and slow some are fast, ya know. Nothing personal

Um, no. That's not how this works. It's not a matter of anyone being more "gifted" than anyone else. Civilizations form due to a certain set of conditions, namely natural resources and lucky circumstances. There were settlements, villages and little towns all over the world but only a civilization has a city. It's based on urban life and supported by agriculture which is high yielding enough to produce a surplus that can feed a large amount of people. Those conditions aren't possible everywhere.

Key Components of Civilization

Civilization describes a complex way of life characterized by urban areas, shared methods of communication, administrative infrastructure, and division of labor.

education.nationalgeographic.org

 

[Tamino]

Because the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic tribes were still, well, tribal and living more or less nomadic lives focused on surviving.

Really? The neolithic revolution had spread through most of Europe before the Bronze Age. These were largely sedentary lifestyles.
If we compare European culture to contemporary Bronze Age cultures of the southern Mediterranean... While Egypt and Sumer were on their first rise and invented writing, Europeans built megalithic structures and large tombs, which also requires a certain level of societal structure and collaboration of larger groups. They may have been less centralized and hierarchical than Egypt, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Trade routes covering continents are attested even in the Neolithic age. Goods and technologies were exchanged between different regions and cultures. A wide spread of ceramic types and burial customs shows that people connected across wider distances. Oetzi demonstrates sophisticated equipment that far exceeds mere survival and "swinging from trees". Stonehenge, New Grange, Goseck and the Nebra disc prove that they knew astronomy.
The Tollense valley battlefield speaks of well organized groups and potentially substantial conflicts.

If we compare Greek to contemporary Celtic culture in the first millennium BCE, the Celts had multiple large hill-top fortresses housing a substantial population. Their chiefs imported ceramics from Greece and mixed those styles with their own culture.
The jewelry, ceramics and textiles of the Celtic tribes in the Iron Age show a high quality. The famous Nordic steel which the Roman legions prized for their armies came from a Celtic region.

Just comparing available technology and the level of arts and crafts, European cultures were a bit different and less centralized, but certainly not "more primitive" than near Eastern or Greek contemporaries.

I see no reason at all as to why they wouldn't have had philosophy.

They were also oral cultures and didn't tend to write much. The Druids, for example, were expressly forbidden from writing anything down about their rites or beliefs. All those other cultures you mentioned were settled, literate civilizations. We don't have much from when the archaic Greeks were still living tribally and transmitting their culture orally, either, if you see what I mean.

This does not mean they didn't have intriguing insights about things (we know that "primitive" tribal peoples usually have complex cosmologies and views about life and the world; they're still human and it's just natural to us to wonder about such topics), but rather their cultures were focused more on other pursuits and they didn't write things down.

I agree that the lack of writing and perhaps even a taboo against writing a things down is a huge point. It's also, in my opinion, the ONLY reason that there is no "Ancient European" philosophy: it simply didn't survive, because it was oral traditions.

Always remember: absence of evidence is no evidence of absence.

And in this case, what we know about European cultures since the stone age, as well as comparison with oral traditions around the globe, "it didn't survive" is far more likely than "they had none"

Oh, and then there's also this massive 19th and 20th century bias of a historical science that used to focus on Greek and Roman written sources and faithfully copied their propaganda against the "barbarians" and took it for fact... Those stereotypes are still being repeated in movies and popular culture.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Really? The neolithic revolution had spread through most of Europe before the Bronze Age. These were largely sedentary lifestyles.
If we compare European culture to contemporary Bronze Age cultures of the southern Mediterranean... While Egypt and Sumer were on their first rise and invented writing, Europeans built megalithic structures and large tombs, which also requires a certain level of societal structure and collaboration of larger groups. They may have been less centralized and hierarchical than Egypt, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Trade routes covering continents are attested even in the Neolithic age. Goods and technologies were exchanged between different regions and cultures. A wide spread of ceramic types and burial customs shows that people connected across wider distances. Oetzi demonstrates sophisticated equipment that far exceeds mere survival and "swinging from trees". Stonehenge, New Grange, Goseck and the Nebra disc prove that they knew astronomy.
The Tollense valley battlefield speaks of well organized groups and potentially substantial conflicts.

If we compare Greek to contemporary Celtic culture in the first millennium BCE, the Celts had multiple large hill-top fortresses housing a substantial population. Their chiefs imported ceramics from Greece and mixed those styles with their own culture.
The jewelry, ceramics and textiles of the Celtic tribes in the Iron Age show a high quality. The famous Nordic steel which the Roman legions prized for their armies came from a Celtic region.

Just comparing available technology and the level of arts and crafts, European cultures were a bit different and less centralized, but certainly not "more primitive" than near Eastern or Greek contemporaries.

I see no reason at all as to why they wouldn't have had philosophy.

I'm not saying they were backwards or anything. I'm using the academic definition of civilization that defines it as certain level of complexity in human society. It's not a value judgement. In fact, that definition includes things that are less savory - more developed and strict hierarchies. We get things like the oppression of women, caste systems, classism and slavery from that. Nomadic peoples had less of that, and more egalitarian cultures. The Norse and the British treated women better than the Romans ever did, and they had more rights. The Mediterranean cultures are still rather misogynist to this day, sadly.

So they certainly had cultures and advanced societies with decent technology. But it wasn't Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Persia, Rome, India, China, etc. At least, not until later. The Northern peoples were also hampered by climatic and other pressures which caused the Great Migration and a ton of upheavel that changed history.

 

[Spice]

IMO, I believe their philosophy was passed down through stories entwined with their religions, holding more closely to wisdoms of family and community more so than the cosmos. One saying that I find very philosophical but is generally said as pre-battle prayer to Odin, I believe, is: "Today is a good day to die." I've read The Poetic Edda and hope to soon begin Celtic Paganism, by Monica Roy. One (there are more) Germanic wisdoms that we have incorporated into Christianity is the Christmas tree, and how "life continues somehow even when all seems to die." This of course being exampled in evergreens in winter.

 

[Stan77]

Um, no. That's not how this works. It's not a matter of anyone being more "gifted" than anyone else. Civilizations form due to a certain set of conditions, namely natural resources and lucky circumstances. There were settlements, villages and little towns all over the world but only a civilization has a city. It's based on urban life and supported by agriculture which is high yielding enough to produce a surplus that can feed a large amount of people. Those conditions aren't possible everywhere.

Um no. That's not how it works.

It's not a matter of your personal prejudices trying to gloss over mental evolutionary advantages, by a prejudicial attribution of resources or something as nebulous/silly as "luck". No "conditions" can help if one is still, ya know, kind of slow. Gonna give credit to intellectual evolution as well.

 

[The Hammer]

Um no. That's not how it works.

It's not a matter of your personal prejudices trying to gloss over mental evolutionary advantages, by a prejudicial attribution of resources or something as nebulous/silly as "luck". No "conditions" can help is one is till, ya know, kind of slow. Gonna give credit to intellectual evolution as well.

No such thing as intellectual evolution. (Not in the way you're suggesting )Unless you can prove it.

 

[Quintessence]

Mainly these reasons:

• Lack of Evidence. This is really the biggest factor. Even if pre-literate cultures had something that modern scholars would classify as philosophy, the absence of evidence makes it impossible to say anything about it one way or another. The vast majority of human history was pre-literate and the best academics can really do is make speculations based on material culture and linguistic analysis. While mystics may have other tools and sources of information at their disposal, the biases of Western academia and scholarship prevent them from taking any of that seriously. So they simply have nothing to work from, or barely anything to work from.
• Disciplinary bias. Speaking of bias, this is also a huge factor. Western academia and scholarship in general has a very particular narrative it likes to tell about itself that is decidedly ethnocentric. If you take a general philosophy course in college, you're not likely to hear much of anything about intellectual traditions outside of Europe and post-colonial North America. The Western intellectual tradition on the whole is a biased product of very specific cultures, and while modern scholars are much more aware of this and in some cases aim to correct for such ethnocentrism, that's a long and difficult process.
• Christianity. It's important to remember that the major player in promoting literacy, education, and intellectualism in Western culture was, historically, Christianity. Christian theologians in particular were encouraged (at times required) to study the Classics so it ended up forming the foundation of the Western intellectual tradition given the power and influence of Christianity over hundreds of years. Some of the arguments first presented in Classical philosophy were implemented in Christianity to reason the existence/necessity of their god over all other gods (among other things). So the Classics became a foundation of Western culture, not something else.
• Philosophy is a Luxury. While the term "philosophy" gets applied very loosely these days, a stricter understanding of what philosophy is defines it as the systematic study of reason, knowledge, and existence. It's a very academic, critical, scholarly inquiry that only happens when a culture isn't occupied with basic needs. In most cultures (and even yet today) it would be considered a spectacular waste of time sitting about and thinking instead of doing and producing things needed for life and living. Intellectualism in general only flourishes in luxurious, modern, domesticated, privileged settings.

But all this is just a few bits I've picked up from studying bits of history of the Western intellectual traditions and philosophy - there are proper books upon books written by scholars who know way more about all this than I could shake a stick at.

 

[Stan77]

No such thing as intellectual evolution. Unless you can prove it.

That's what she said. Guess what? She was wrong. That's why you don't find ancient European philosophies.

 

[The Hammer]

That's what she said. Guess what? She was wrong. That's why you don't find ancient European philosophies.

Got it. You're a child.

 

[Stan77]

Got it. You're a child.

I guess you've never heard that child is the father of man, eh lad.

Keep on working, maybe some day, you may reach there.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Um no. That's not how it works.

It's not a matter of your personal prejudices trying to gloss over mental evolutionary advantages, by a prejudicial attribution of resources or something as nebulous/silly as "luck". No "conditions" can help if one is still, ya know, kind of slow. Gonna give credit to intellectual evolution as well.

So you're just a racist. Whatever.

 

[Stan77]

So you're just a racist. Whatever.

Aww, what's with all the tag team personal attacks. Doesn't suit thee, my friends.

Distortion of what's being said is most likely the last resort for ya know, the slow.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Aww, what's with all the tag team personal attacks. Doesn't suit thee, my friends.

Distortion of what's being said is most likely the last resort for ya know, the slow.

It's not a personal attack. You believe that certain ethnic groups have an innate biological superiority. That's literally what racism is. Also, grow up. You're not going to be taken seriously here if you keep speaking like that, just so you know.