The world with a surviving Milesian school

[Otto Kretschmer]

I don't feel at ease asking this here as ot is not an alt history forum but since we have a thread on Greco-Roman paganism, I decided to go forward and post it.

The Milesian school was the first western school of philosophy, that emphasized logical thinking, empirical observation and rational explanations for phenomena. It consisted of just three philosophers - Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes and died out in the 500s BC.

What if it did not?

What if this school survived and became either the dominant or at least one of several competing schools of philosophy in Greece?

What inventions/achievements would the Milesians make had they survived for several centuries longer? Would we witness a full scale scientific revolution 2000 years before our timeline?

[rotting bones]

It would have been very difficult for modern science to take root in Greece. Greek society was extremely anti-individualistic. The establishment regarded the idea that heavenly bodies are not divine as a threat to common values.

[Emily]

uhhh individualism is not a prerequisite for the development of the scientific method

[rotting bones]

uhhh individualism is not a prerequisite for the development of the scientific method

It kind of is. If a scientific discovery is regarded as a challenge to social values, then science can't progress.

[zompist]

logical thinking, empirical observation and rational explanations for phenomena.

I'm pretty sure Aristotle thought he was doing this. There's hardly a more charged word in Greek philosophy than logos (reason).

What inventions/achievements would the Milesians make had they survived for several centuries longer? Would we witness a full scale scientific revolution 2000 years before our timeline?

Why? What did the Greeks have that the Chinese didn't have? The Chinese invented more things, even invented printing to spread ideas faster, and still didn't quite take off.

There are a lot of factors that contributed to the scientific revolution. Printing was a factor; possibly the disunity of Europe (if you couldn't find one sponsor you could look elsewhere); scholars set out to learn as much as they could from craftsmen. Having a central repository to publish papers and keep track of unresolved questions was important.

But according to some historians, such as Mark Elvin, the biggest factor was the labor shortage in Western Europe after the Black Death. It paid off to invent things; whereas China had so much labor, and ran its economy with such efficiency, that the machines it could build couldn't transform production. Greece was a slave economy, much closer to China than to early modern Europe.

Also, sorry to be a thrower of cold water. You can do as you like in a conworld, of course. But "what if ancient times but steam engines" is not a very deep or realistic idea; you need a lot more than an attitude of rationalism to get going.

[rotting bones]

I'm pretty sure Aristotle thought he was doing this. There's hardly a more charged word in Greek philosophy than logos (reason).

Aristotle's method was different from empirical science. Aristotle still regarded contemplation as higher than experience. He would probably have regarded experimentation to find answers as lowly and craftsman-like. What the Lyceum had were practical "demonstrations" that the conclusions arrived at by contemplation are sound. They fell into the verification trap.

Why? What did the Greeks have that the Chinese didn't have? The Chinese invented more things, even invented printing to spread ideas faster, and still didn't quite take off.

The Confucians retarded progress every chance they got. The Ming were taking off until the Confucians turned back to the elevated study of the classical past. In China, the ancient faction associated with science, the Mohists, were regarded as unsophisticated enemies of Confucian elegance.

A similar movement happened in Europe during the Renaissance, but Europe had produced more scientific theory in its classical past, even though most of it was wrong. A lot of European science grew out of its criticism of classical theories.

There are a lot of factors that contributed to the scientific revolution. Printing was a factor; possibly the disunity of Europe (if you couldn't find one sponsor you could look elsewhere); scholars set out to learn as much as they could from craftsmen. Having a central repository to publish papers and keep track of unresolved questions was important.

But according to some historians, such as Mark Elvin, the biggest factor was the labor shortage in Western Europe after the Black Death. It paid off to invent things; whereas China had so much labor, and ran its economy with such efficiency, that the machines it could build couldn't transform production. Greece was a slave economy, much closer to China than to early modern Europe.

Also, sorry to be a thrower of cold water. You can do as you like in a conworld, of course. But "what if ancient times but steam engines" is not a very deep or realistic idea; you need a lot more than an attitude of rationalism to get going.

Ancient Greeks did have a steam engine, but they never used it. They even had computing mechanisms (Antikythera mechanism), but they only used it to predict astronomical phenomena. One factor that was suggested is the development of tooling. Even if you know the theory behind a machine, you might not have the tools to build it. The Analytical Engine suffered the same fate.

[zompist]

Why? What did the Greeks have that the Chinese didn't have? The Chinese invented more things, even invented printing to spread ideas faster, and still didn't quite take off.

The Confucians retarded progress every chance they got. The Ming were taking off until the Confucians turned back to the elevated study of the classical past. In China, the ancient faction associated with science, the Mohists, were regarded as unsophisticated enemies of Confucian elegance.

You're omitting Daoism, which was very strong in the Tang/Song era. FWIW Joseph Needham thinks that Neo-Confucian attacks on Daoism greatly slowed down Chinese science. Your chronology is a bit off: the Neo-Confucians became predominant just before the Ming.

One factor that was suggested is the development of tooling. Even if you know the theory behind a machine, you might not have the tools to build it. The Analytical Engine suffered the same fate.

Yeah, there's a good argument that classical manufacturing was not good enough to support an industrial revolution. E.g. to make big steam engines you need the sort of steel plating that wasn't available in the West till the 1700s.

The Romans had some impressive factories... none of which survived the fall of the West. The advantage and the disadvantage of a premodern society is that when times get bad, people fall back on self-sufficiency. If you're a noble, you don't need industry if everything you use is made (by other people, of course) on your estate.

[rotting bones]

You're omitting Daoism, which was very strong in the Tang/Song era. FWIW Joseph Needham thinks that Neo-Confucian attacks on Daoism greatly slowed down Chinese science.

Mohists dealt with crafting things to improve society. Daoists were more into concocting potions to achieve immortality. Like Western alchemists, they inadvertently helped develop chemistry. But I don't think Daoists would have dealt with lowly mechanical crafts.

Your chronology is a bit off: the Neo-Confucians became predominant just before the Ming.

There was a period in the Ming dynasty where China did turn outwards. Zheng He sailed around major parts of the world in the Ming dynasty before the turn inward. I probably read this from Ian Morris.

[Moose-tache]

How did my collection of 19th century historiography escape and find the wifi password?

[zompist]

Mohists dealt with crafting things to improve society. Daoists were more into concocting potions to achieve immortality. Like Western alchemists, they inadvertently helped develop chemistry. But I don't think Daoists would have dealt with lowly mechanical crafts.

Everyone likes the Mohists these days— the nationalists and communists both approved of them— but they disappeared with little trace. Something encouraged crafts and invention in the Tang/Song, and it's probably not coincidence that the Neo-Confucians triumphed just as Chinese science slowed down. The Daoists were into alchemy, yes, but someone was inventing clockwork, printing, the compass, paper money, gunpower, the spinning machine, improved plows, and more.

There was a period in the Ming dynasty where China did turn outwards. Zheng He sailed around major parts of the world in the Ming dynasty before the turn inward. I probably read this from Ian Morris.

Yeah, it's kind of a gift to alt history, because the Chinese reached West Africa just a half century before the Portuguese did.

The thing is, none of those expeditions brought back anything the Chinese really wanted. The West was eager for Eastern things; the Chinese didn't really need anything from the West except silver. Sometimes being #1 in the world makes people a little complacent.

[rotting bones]

Everyone likes the Mohists these days— the nationalists and communists both approved of them— but they disappeared with little trace.

They weren't that great. The Mohists were just as authoritarian as the Confucians, and they were extremely anti-intellectual. I get the sense that Confucians weren't wrong in regarding them as enemies of culture.

The Daoists were into alchemy, yes, but someone was inventing clockwork, printing, the compass, paper money, gunpower, the spinning machine, improved plows, and more.

I doubt it was the Daoists that were doing it. This was a natural advance. Daoists weren't really into using crafts for social good, and that is why Confucians let Daoism survive.

Something encouraged crafts and invention in the Tang/Song, and it's probably not coincidence that the Neo-Confucians triumphed just as Chinese science slowed down.

Confucians were relentless enemies of all innovation. They regarded traditional ways of doing things as communal rituals, and any change to them as besmirching the memories of one's parents.

Ancient Greece wasn't much different. Athens killed any philosopher who threatened its communal values, and their communal values were threatened by the suggestion that the world is materialistic. Pretty much the only Greek cities that didn't share this hostility to science were the ones on the Asian mainland, and those fell under Persian domination.

The Persians, on the other hand, supported great engineering works, and they were regarded by Greeks as hubristic for that reason. But they were ruled by a despot, and it is not in the immediate interests of despots to enrich the people.

[zompist]

The Daoists were into alchemy, yes, but someone was inventing clockwork, printing, the compass, paper money, gunpower, the spinning machine, improved plows, and more.

I doubt it was the Daoists that were doing it. This was a natural advance. Daoists weren't really into using crafts for social good, and that is why Confucians let Daoism survive.

It's not necessarily that Daoists were inventors, it's that Daoism had more influence in Tang and Song times than they did later. Also Buddhism. Again, Neo-Confucianism took over just before Ming times. China wasn't always the exact same thing.

Ancient Greece wasn't much different. Athens killed any philosopher who threatened its communal values,

Who, besides Socrates? (Wikipedia has a helpful page; there are a lot of weird causes of death. "Diogenes of Sinope... is alleged to have died from eating raw octopus, from being bitten by a dog, and from holding his breath." Only one death attributed to the Athenians.)

[rotting bones]

It's not necessarily that Daoists were inventors, it's that Daoism had more influence in Tang and Song times than they did later. Also Buddhism. Again, Neo-Confucianism took over just before Ming times. China wasn't always the exact same thing.

Even Neo-Confucianism wasn't always the same thing. IIRC:

Zhu Xi's teaching, which was more popular in Korea, emphasized inquiring into facts. He is recorded as having done experiments to verify claims. In Korea, debate was routine.

Yangming's teaching, which was more popular in China, was more influenced by Buddhism and focused on mind over matter.

In any case, the first Ming emperor put the orthodox Confucians, as opposed to Neo-Confucians, in charge after his victory. So "took over" might not be the right description. Orthodox Confucians were generally more tolerant of opposing views.

Generally speaking, Confucians were insane traditionalists. Although they had more competition at some times than others, they were generally the people running the administration. They opposed innovation whenever they had the chance.

Who, besides Socrates? (Wikipedia has a helpful page; there are a lot of weird causes of death. "Diogenes of Sinope... is alleged to have died from eating raw octopus, from being bitten by a dog, and from holding his breath." Only one death attributed to the Athenians.)

To be precise, they sentenced "impious" philosophers to death, and let them run away. That's what happened to Anaxagoras. Aristotle ran away before they could get him. Pythagoras was hunted down by a mob in a different city. The thing with Socrates was that he refused to run away, forcing Athens to carry out his sentence.

There are, of course, always political reasons behind charges of "impiety". That is the case in all non-fundamentalist societies. (Edit: Basically, the entire opposition to science is a consequence of "political reasons".)