Part II: Philosophy: the Contribution
of the Indo-Europeans
THE UNINVENTIVENESS OF INDO-EUROPEANS
is very difficult to extract oneself from a familiar cultural
background sufficiently to view the achievements of other cultures
objectively. It comes as something of a shock to discover how
little we, of Western tradition, have contributed to the world's
Technology. It seems so obviously otherwise. But a recognition
of this fact is salutary in so far as it can influence our thinking
about other cultures by making us far more respectful of them.
Moreover, it may have a practical value. If we discover where
our real strength lies, possibly we shall take more time to cultivate
it. This could mean some changes of emphasis in technical education,
at least at the University level.
Perhaps it would
be a good thing to give a few bold statements about our lack
of inventiveness - though they may seem manifestly wide of the
mark. We have already mentioned the debt of the Greeks to the
Minoans, and the debt of the Romans to the Etruscans. These creditors,
in turn, owed much to Egypt, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia. Sir Arthur
1. Evans, Sir Arthur, The Palace of Minos,
London, UK, Macmillan, 1921, vol.,1, p.16.
The proto-Egyptian element in early Minoan Crete
is, in fact, so clearly defined and is so intensive in its nature
as almost to suggest something more than such a connection as might
have been brought about by primitive commerce. It may well, indeed,
be asked whether in the times of stress and change that marked the
triumph of the dynastic element in the Nile Valley, some part of the
older population then driven out, may not have made an actual settlement
on the soil of Crete. When it is realized how many elements drawn
from the Minoan world lived on in that of Hellas, the full import
of this very ancient indebtedness to Egypt at once becomes apparent.
Egyptian influences, hitherto reckoned as a rather secondary incident
among the later classical movements, are now seen to be at the very
root of our civilization.
Indo-Europeans as modifiers but NOT inventive
Such threads are now even clearer
than when Evans wrote. Later on in our history, and via the Arabs,
we became indebted both to native Africa and the Far East; and
via the explorers and pioneers of the New World, we became greatly
indebted to the American Indians. Our cultural and technical
heritage has manifold roots. It is not difficult in the present
state of knowledge to write down a list of some 300 basic elements
or items of our technology which we have borrowed from non-Indo-European
sources, and which cover almost the whole range of modern civilization,
not excepting the use of electricity.
Admittedly we have
done much to modify, extend, improve, and increase the general
availability of the things we took over from these other Cultures.
We have already quoted from M. D. C. Crawford to the effect that
in the realm of natural fibres and dyes, we contributed little
or nothing to the Technology of Textiles. But, inspired by the
desire to be independent of outside sources of raw materials,
we have succeeded in producing synthetic fibres which allowed
us to develop certain new techniques of fabrication, such as
extruding in sheet form and heat sealing seams instead of stitching
them. Yet it remains fundamentally true that we have made no
real advance upon the textile skills of non-Indo-Europeans who
used natural fibres and dyes and therefore provided our fundamental
knowledge, and by their non-woven materials inspired us to attempt
alternatives. Nor did we advance the world's resources in other
S. Coon says: "The linguists tell us that the Indo-European
speakers did not initially domesticate one useful animal or one
2. Coon, Carleton S., The Races of Europe,
New York, NY, Macmillan, 1939, 178.
Sarton quotes William H. Hudson as having remarked in 1892: 3
It is sad to reflect that
all our domestic animals have descended to us from those ancient
times which we are accustomed to regard as dark and barbarous,
while the effect of our modem so-called humane civilization has
been purely destructive of animal life. Not one type do we rescue
from the carnage going on at an ever increasing rate all over
has changed slightly, since. But there is one exception possibly
-- a rather amusing one. Sarton adds, in commenting on this remark
of Hudson's, "The only animal domesticated in historic times
is the ostrich: this was a poor achievement which was justified
only because some women and generals wanted feathers for their
W. J. Perry, whose reconstructions
of history are not too well accepted, was nevertheless essentially
correct when he wrote: 4
The Celts, like the Teutons,
never invented anything; the whole of their culture shows signs
of derivation from the Mediterranean.
Raglan says the same thing with respect to the Romans: 5
The old Roman
ritual gave little encouragement to inventiveness, and later
cults were imported ready-made from the East. As a result, the
Romans invented almost nothing.
quote Joseph Needham again, 6
Persian invention of first rank was the windmill ... Unless the
rotary quern be attributed to them, the ancient Europeans of
the Mediterranean Basin launched only one valuable mechanical
technique, namely, the pot chain pump...
3. Sarton, George, A History Science,
Cambridge, MA, Harvard, 1952, p.5, fn.2.
4. Perry, William J., The Growth of Civilization,
Harmondsworth, UK, Penguin, 1937, p.157.
5. Raglan, Lord, How Came Civilization? London,
UK, Methuen, 1939, p.179.
6. Needham, J., Science and Civilization in China, Cambridge,
UK, Cambridge University Press, 1954, vol.1 p.,240
another direction, J. Grahame Clark emphasizes how little Europeans
contributed to the labours of the American Indians within their
own environment: 7
During the four centuries
since the Discovery (1492) the White Man has failed to make a
single contribution of importance.
enough this has been true also of the Semites who, although not
Indo-European, should nevertheless be distinguished where possible
from the Non-Indo-Europeans whom we have been considering thus
far. Speaking of the Babylonians and Assyrians, both Semitic,
who succeeded the Sumerians in Mesopotamia, Vere Gordon Childe
says: "In the next two millennia one can scarcely point
to a single first class invention or discovery. . . ."8
makes two exceptions -- the alphabet, and iron smelting. But
the latter is doubtful. It seems more likely that the credit
must be to the Hittites for this - rather than to the Babylonians.
The raw materials did not exist in Mesopotamia as far as I know.
Ralph Linton, referring to the same people, says categorically:
"Not a single item of later technology was introduced by
the invading Semites." 9
Semites NOT inventive, but carriers
The Arabs are largely
(though by no means entirely) Semitic also. Speaking of them,
Lord Raglan, after discussing the uninventiveness of the Romans,
Much the same can be said for
the Moslems. There was a period of mild inventiveness while their
religion was settling down into its various sects, but since
that process was completed about 900 years ago, no Moslem has
7. Clark, J. Grahame D., "New World Origins,"
Antiquity, vol.14(54), June, 1940, p.118.
8. Childe, V. Gordon, New Light on the Most Ancient East,
London, UK, Kegan Paul, 1935, p.203.
9. Linton, Ralph, The Tree of Culture, New York, NY, Knopf,
10. Raglan, Lord, How Came Civilization? London, UK, Methuen,
this is quite contrary to popular opinion. Their role as carriers
from the Far East and from Africa, has led to the somewhat widespread
belief that they originated what we received from them. But on
this point Rene Albrecht-Carrie has this to say: 11
What is really relevant in this
context is that the Arabs - or rather the wide variety of peoples
whom they brought under their control and who came to pass under
their name - were not so much innovators as collectors, organizers,
synthesizers, and, most important, carriers of the contributions
of other times and peoples. This is not to deny or minimize the
crucial importance of their role or to ignore the fact that they
made some valuable contributions of their own: but it remains
largely true that the initiation of the "Scientific Revolution"
was not of their own making. Nevertheless to this making they
contributed mightily ... but the Arab contribution, was, to repeat,
mainly in the form of a transfer of ancient learning. . . .
Boscawen, one of the earlier cuneiform scholars to make known
the findings of Archaeology in the Middle East, came to the same
conclusion after studying Babylonian civilization: 12
There is a powerful element
in the Semitic character which has been, and still is, a most
important factor in their national life: it is that of adaptability.
Inventors they have never shown themselves to be.
James H. Breasted
illustrated this very clearly in pointing out how much the Babylonians
borrowed from the Sumerians whose land they had invaded and conquered.
He wrote: 13
Some of the Semites now learned
to write their Semitic tongue by using Sumerian cuneiform signs
for the purpose. The Semites in time therefore adopted their
script, their weights, their measures, their mathematics, their
system of numerals, their business terms, and a large measure
of their judiciary systems.
In a similar
vein, R. F. Grau pointed out that the pure Arabs developed
"no new industry nor art [by which he means Technique ACC],
nor trade." 14
The only thing they did invent was a style of architecture. He
holds the same to have been true of modern Jewry.
11. Albrecht-Carrie, Rene, "Of Science,
Its History and the Teaching Thereof' Scientific Monthly,
vol.63(1), 1951, p.19. Even the so-called Arabic
numerals are actually Indian.(Linton, Ralph, The Tree of Culture,
New York, NY, Knopf, 1956, p.296.)
12. Boscawen, St., Chad, The Bible and the Monuments,
London, UK, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1896, p.18.
13. Breasted, James, Ancient Tunes: a History of the Early
World, London, UK, Ginn and Co., 1935, p.160.
14. Grau, R. F., The Goal of the Human Race, London, UK,
Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton and Kent, 1892, p.88, 91.
is not altogether clear to me how much the Arabs did actually contribute.
H.J.J. Winter credits them with quite a few technical achievements. Yet
he does say that in "the so-called Golden Age of Islam, Science owed
its importance largely to the Persian contribution."15
He also remarks that the language of Iran had assumed a new significance,
and that those who wrote in this language made the greatest contribution.
This, it seems to me, tends to favour my argument, for the language of
Iran is within the Indo-European family. It is not then so surprising
to find that some of their best known writers, such as Ibn Sina (980-1037),
were noted for their "theoretical postulates." The reason for
this observation will become clearer in the following Chapter. Ibn Sina
in fact placed mechanics in the lowest level of a great scheme of speculative
philosophy, according to Winter. Extracts are given by Winter of some
of Sina's postulates, and these are completely in the tradition of 'modern'
Later works tended, it seems, towards
mechanics and away from pure speculation as the Persian influence
waned; only two Islamic treatises being particularly outstanding,
one of which is entitled The Book of the Knowledge of Ingenious
Mechanical Contrivances. Its main interest was in elaborate
water-clocks - which, as we have seen, were derived from China
and therefore not original with the Arabs. The other of these
two outstanding books concentrates on various types of balances,
with a clearly practical end in view particularly in connection
with coinage and trade. Winter mentions the fact that the Arabs
widely exploited natural sources of power especially wind-mills
and water-mills. Again, the former was borrowed from Persia and
the latter probably from China.
Yet it is obvious that
Jewish people have contributed to the Technology of civilization:
for example, Weismann in Chemistry, and Einstein in Physics.
But there is a consideration of some importance here. In a paper
which is nearer to my Thesis than any other I have yet come across,
Jessie Bernard makes this significant observation: 16
It is not the Jews who
remain within their own cultural setting who make the greatest
contribution.... It is only, as Veblen says, "when the gifted
Jew escapes from the cultural environment created and fed by
the genius of his own people, and becomes a naturalized, though
hyphenate, citizen in the gentile republic of learning, that
he comes into his own as a creative leader in the world's intellectual
15. Winter, H.J.J, "Muslim Mechanics
and Mechanical Appliances," Endeavour, Jan., 1956,
16. Bernard, Jessie, "Can Science Transcend Culture,"
Scientific Monthly," Oct., 1950, p.271.
Jessie Bernard points out that it is not the result of mere chance
that the great revolutionary ideas of our time -- Freudianism, Marxism,
and Einstinian relativity -- were promulgated by Jews who were no longer
in any sense orthodox. She might also, perhaps, have mentioned St. Paul
who, rejecting Judaism, became an apostle of a new faith to the Gentile
Influence of language and grammar
Now this is a generative idea.
It suggests possibly that any non-Indo-European can become 'Western'
in his outlook, provided that he adopts, at least to some extent,
the habits of thought and the worldview of the Westerner. It
is not merely a matter of adopting the mechanics of Western Civilization.
This, I think, is an important
point. It was with this in mind that I said at the beginning
of this Thesis that adoption of the Scientific Method by non-Indo-Europeans
involves some modification of the grammar of their language.
The vocabulary of any people may change quite rapidly at times,
but grammar (ie., the structure of language) tends to
be preserved - because apparently it reflects a way of looking
at things. Ernst Cassirer says in a paper on the influence of
language on the development of scientific thought: "Modern
linguistics does not hesitate to speak of a 'philosophy of grammar'."
Though I am aware of the
controversy here, I think it is generally agreed among linguists
that we do not think conceptually without symbols. Habitual thought
patterns of a 'philosophic' nature will therefore be related
to established grammatical forms. This was an area investigated
with very great fruitfulness by Benjamin Lee Whorf, 18 and of course by Susanne
Langer, 19 and
a host of others. It will be discussed in Part III more fully.
Philosophy vs. practical wisdom
In the meantime, while non-Indo-Europeans
are highly inventive, they have not been particularly -- if at
all -- philosophical. In the opinion of many writers they have
studiously avoided speculation about anything
17. Cassirer, Ernst, "The Influence of
Language on the Development of Scientific Thought," Journal
of Philosophy, vol.39, June, 1942, p.323.
18. Whorf, Benjamin Lee, Collected Papers On Metalinguistics,
Foreign Service Institute, Dept. of State, Washington, DC,1952.
19. Langer, Susanne, Philosophy in a New Key, New York,
NY, Mentor Books, 1948, Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 in particular.
that was not of an entirely practical
nature. It is partly a question of definition. Needham speaks freely enough
of Chinese philosophy, but one wonders whether he is really using the
term in the accepted sense. If our own definition is permitted to stand
for the moment, none of these people whose ingenuity we have examined
really produced philosophers.
The only organized attempt
to present an opposite view, as far as I know, is that made by
Paul Radin in his book, Primitive Man as Philosopher. 20 I have found it difficult
to assess this volume fairly because I had the feeling all the
time that the best illustrations of primitive philosophy (mostly
given from among the North American Indian tribes) could so easily
be the result of Western influence. How is one ever to know for
sure that a man's views are "native" as it were, when
he has lived much of his adult life within the orbit of Western
thought? In a lecture given in the University of Toronto, E.
Carpenter of the Anthropology Department, stated that some Rorschach
tests had been administered in primitive societies to individuals
who were considered by their own culture to be abnormal, such
as Eskimo shamans, etc. "The results showed nothing, except
in several instances a tendency towards abstract thinking,"
This is a slender platform for
any argument, but certainly it does not stand against our view
that primitive man does not normally concern himself with abstractions
at all. If he does, he may be classed by his own culture as abnormal.
Levy-Bruhl was one of the
strongest exponents of the view that primitives have a different
kind of mentality from ourselves. 21 It is unfortunate that his description for this --
"pre-logical thought" -- was misunderstood to mean
il-logical thought. Native people are not illogical. They
(and all other non-Indo-Europeans) tend to adopt different premises,
and on these different premises to erect a quite logical superstructure.
This can be demonstrated ad infinitum. Because we cannot
understand one of their premises, namely that Nature is 'personal,'
we tend to reject the superstructure on the grounds that it is
not rational. We shall consider this later. And
Levy-Bruhl pointed out that one cannot define a society by one
or two of its members, so that the discovery of one or two odd
individuals who show some liking for the abstract does not tell
us much about the culture as a whole. Following August Comte,
he said: "The highest mental
functions of man remain unintelligible as long as they are studied
from the individual alone."22
20. Radin, Paul, Primitive Man as Philosopher,
New York, NY, Dover Publications, 1957.
21. Levy-Bruhl, Lucien, How Natives Think, translated
by L. A. Clare, London, UK, Allen and Unwin, 1926.
22. Levy-Bruhl, Lucien, ibid. p.15.
a few exceptions do not indicate too much. Radin at times seems to be
confusing 'a philosophy of life' held by one or two outstanding members
of a culture, with Philosophy. Maritain admits that all peoples have a
little Philosophy too - but through 'sacred tradition' as much as anything,
rather than by personal creation. 23 This does not make a man a Philosopher.
Radin admits Indo-European influences, but considers this of
no great importance. He says: 24
For our purposes, it is immaterial
whether some of this speculation is connected with recent European
influence or not, since all I am desirous of proving is that
a few individuals in every community indulge in speculation and
enjoy it. Some of the examples I shall quote are definitely connected
with recent Christian influence, but these are particularly instructive
because the questions they develop are often quite new to Christian
My own feeling
is that this misses a point that makes all the difference; namely,
that the Christian influence brought with it a new worldview
and inevitably introduced modifications of language and of thought
patterns. One of his examples is so obviously not original, since
it reproduces (almost word for word at times) the Genesis
account of man's creation, that one wonders why it is used at
all. 25 He
also admits that, 26
It is from instances where we
know European and Christian influence to have been definitely
present that our best evidence for the existence of thinkers,
and for the philosophical quality of their thoughts, can be derived.
admission virtually proves my point! Yet Radin's book is provocative.
The Winnebago Indians, with whom he is best acquainted, did much
real thinking. Their poetry is quite remarkable. This I feel,
ought to be said in fairness to the author of this very readable
work, for I am aware of a strong prejudice that undoubtedly makes
it far easier for me to see the borrowed elements than any original
ones which may exist. Yet, of these people, Radin says "the
Winnebago have been in contact with European civilization since
the second quarter of the 17th century." 27
This is a long time. Throughout the 18th
century, the White Man
23. Maritain, Jacques, An Introduction
to Philosophy, New York, NY, Sheed and Ward, 1937, p.25.
24. Radin, P., Primitive Man as Philosopher, New York,
NY, Dover Publications, 1957, p.276.
25. Radin, P., ibid., p.236.
26. Radin, P., ibid., p.387.
27. Radin P., ibid., p.396
settled increasingly among them.
Jacques Maritain sums up my own
convictions in this matter by saying: 28
Philosophic speculation... is unknown
to all the so-called primitive races. Indeed, even of the civilizations
of antiquity the greater part either have possessed no philosophy
or have failed to discover its true nature and distinctive character.
In any case philosophy only began to exist at a very late period
about the eighth and especially the sixth century B. C.
proceeds thereafter to show that the Egyptians did not produce
philosophers either - in spite of popular opinion to the contrary.
They bent their mental energies to very practical ends, even
their 'theology' being entirely a utilitarian affair. As Martin
Engberg says: "Nowhere is there any indication that Egyptians
were interested in theoretical problems." 29
Egyptians not philosophers
Sir Alan Gardiner in the introduction
to his Egyptian Grammar put the matter even more forcibly
when be said: 30
No people has ever shown itself
more averse from philosophical speculation, or more wholeheartedly
devoted to material interests.
Even in more
popular articles where one might least expect to find it, authorities
make the same admission, thus cutting right across a very common
illusion about these remarkable people. William Hayes remarks:
28. Maritain, Jacques, An Introduction
to Philosophy, New York, NY, Sheed and Ward, 1937, p.23.
29. Engberg, Martin, The Dawn of Civilization, New York,
NY, University of Knowledge Series, Cuneo Press, 1938, p.153.
30. Gardiner, Sir Alan, Egyptian Grammar, Oxford, UK,
Oxford University Press, 1927, section 3, p.4.
31. Hayes, William C., "Daily Life in Ancient Egypt,"
National Geographic Magazine, Oct, 1941, p.425-428.
devout, the ancient Egyptian had neither the mental nor the spiritual
equipment necessary to the creation or even the adaptation of a great
religion. An analysis of the Egyptian religion shows that it consisted
of at least four unrelated cults or phases, no one of which ever passed
beyond what we should regard as a primitive stage
and quick to learn, he had a mind of the practical unimaginative
type. He was a materialist, and not given to deep speculative
thought, and was unable either to evolve or to express a purely
for a more scholarly audience, James Newman, speaking of the
Rhind Papyrus, says: 32
The Egyptians, it
has been said, made no great contributions to mathematical knowledge.
They were practical men, not given to much speculative or abstract
inquiries. Dreamers were rare among them, and mathematics is
nourished by dreamers - as it nourishes them. . . .
The Rhind Papyrus,
though it demonstrates the inability of the Egyptians to generalize,
and their penchant for clinging to cumbersome calculating processes,
proves that they were remarkably pertinacious in solving everyday
problems . . . and uncommonly skilful in making do with the awkward
methods they employed.
E. B. Jourdain states that:33
The Egyptians' geometrical knowledge
was of a wholly practical nature. For example, the Egyptians
were very particular about the exact orientation of their temples.
explains how the regular flooding of the Nile continually washed
away or concealed land marks and boundary lines, so that re-surveying
was an annual chore. This led early to the development of rapid
means for drawing right angles, etc., and indeed led to the word
'Geometry (i.e., land-measuring) which the Greeks gave to the
mathematics they took over from the Egyptians. But unlike the
Greek mathematics, Egyptian mathematics was purely a practical
affair. As Jourdain put it: 34
32. Newman, James, R, "The Rhind Papyrus,'
in The World of Mathematics, of which he was the editor,
New York, NY, Simon and Schuster, 1956, vol.1, p.170.
33. Jourdain, Philip, E.B., "The Nature of Mathematics,"
in The World of Mathematics, edited by J.R.Newman, Simon
and Schuster, 1956, vol.1. p,11.
34. Jourdain, Philip.E.B., ibid., p.12.
The Rhind Papyrus
contains a fairly complete applied mathematics, in which measurement
of figures and solids plays the principal part; there are no theorems
properly so called; everything is stated in the form of problems,
not in general terms, but in distinct numbers.
different was the product which Thales derived out of this heritage.
It was, as Jourdain says a 'transformation'; he no longer presented
his conclusions as a mere induction from a large number of special
instances, as probably was the case with the Egyptian geometrician.
But rather: 35
The deductive character which
he gave to the Science is his chief claim to distinction. Pythagoras
(born about 580 B. C.) changed geometry into a form of abstract
science, regarding its principles in a purely abstract manner,
and investigated its theorems from the immaterial and intellectual
point of view.
then, in the field of mathematics: in medicine the same picture
is presented. Ileen Stewart, in dealing with one particular aspect
of early medical practice, says this: 36
Much of the medical lore
of the Egyptian became the heritage of the Greeks as they fashioned
their civilization in the last few centuries B. C., at the eastern
fringe of the Mediterranean.
The knowledge they inherited was
essentially factual, the accumulation of Egyptian observations
and experience. The Greeks attempted to put these facts together
and derive a systematic pattern in nature. Many of their interpretations
are still tinged with mysticism, but were philosophical and logical
as the Egyptians had never been.
Papyrus, dated about 1500 B. C., purchased in Luxor in 1872 from
an Arab by a German Egyptologist after whom it is named, shows
how extensive the knowledge of the Egyptians was. Their medicine
was by no means a mere jumble of magic formulae and otherwise
useless substances whose only value was as a kind of placebo.
The Ebers Papyrus alone mentions
over 700 drugs and lists numerous prescriptions for specific
illnesses. Most of these are polypharmaceutical and contain up
to 35 ingredients. Some are still valid today. Among
35. Jourdain, Philip E.B., ibid., p.14.
36. Stewart, Ileen, "Helminths in History, Scientific
Monthly, vol.72(6), June, 1951, p.348.
the drugs prescribed are castor
oil, opium, squill, honey, copper sulfate, and sodium bicarbonate, as
well as magnesia, iron, and lead, peppermint, anise, saffron, juniper
berries, gentian, colchicum, and Epsom salts. It contains some 811 such
Our knowledge of their achievements
is quite extensive in this area. We have a number of other papyri,
such as the Edwin Smith Papyrus, 1600 B. C., dealing with surgery;
the Lesser Berlin Papyrus, 1600 B. C., dealing with magic; and
the Kahum Papyrus, 2000 B.C., dealing with gynecology and animal
Speaking of their astronomy, Jourdain
says it was "altogether concrete and empirical" - undertaken
for purely practical reasons.
James Baikie, in a well-known
early textbook on Egyptian life and times, speaking of their
so-called 'philosophers' such as Ptah-hotep, said: 37
All the evidence
goes to show that the Egyptian was one of the most severely practical
of men, who sought learning not for any joy in the attainment
of truth for its own sake, but simply as a means to an end....
The wisdom of Ptah-hotep and Kagemni is in general of a canny,
practical nature, concerning itself with the ordinary details
of life and conduct, and inculcating prudence which, however
praiseworthy, reaches no high ideals but is based mainly on self-interest.
in no way to belittle the extraordinary achievements of the Egyptians
in every field of Technology. The daily lives of their upper
classes must have been as comfortable as one can imagine, their
physical needs supplied with elegance and good taste in marked
contrast to the Greeks who initiated Science in Europe but whose
lives were evidently lived m rather comfortless austerity. Clive
Bell has pointed out that the disinterestedness of the latter
in their pursuit of truth has been made a reproach to them. As
he put it, "they sought truth for its own sake . . . not
as a means to power and comfort... The Athenians wished to live
richly rather than to be rich." 38 The life of a well-to-do Greek in classical times,
so rich and complete in thought and feeling, was in most material
blessings "indecently deficient" as he puts it.
37. Baikie, James, Tire Story of the Pharaohs,
London, UK, Black, 1908, p.59.
38. Bell, Clive, Civilization,, Harmondsworth, UK, Penguin
Books, 1938, p.63.
Theory vs. practice
Yet one should not suppose that
either the Egyptians or the Sumerians or the Babylonians were
illogical or lacked precision in their Technology. R J. Forbes,
speaking more particularly of their metallurgy, is careful to
make it quite clear that the very opposite was the case. He says:
It is certainly not true
that pre-classical Science [i.e., Technology, ACC] is nothing
but a mass and a medley of fantasy and detective observations.
The more we get to know of it, the better we observe that it
was a model of precision and practical classification as far
as the means of those days went. Pre-classical Science was a-logical;
it did not want to explore or to understand structures
and mechanisms. [Emphasis mine]
What has been
said of Egypt applies to all the ancient Middle East Cultures.
The Mesopotamian Cultures produced a highly complex mathematical
knowledge as we have seen. Yet here again, all their tables are
presented to us much as statistical tables tend to be - 'findings'
resulting from actual cumulative experience. There is no
theory. As Benjamin Farrington put it, 40
We are in the presence of abundant
evidence of Babylonian mathematical ability, but their tables
(of roots, cube roots, squares, and cubes, etc.) are offered
to us like our own practical tables for calculating interest
and so forth, without proof or theory. So that as far
as the evidence goes, Babylonian arithmetic is under the suspicion
of being largely empirical.
In both Babylonia
and Egypt we therefore have evidence of an extensive manipulation
of figures, yet in neither case did it ever disengage itself
from practical applications, nor become organized as a logical
series of deductions from a few self-evident principles capable
of extension by abstract reasoning 'into a true Science. There
was no Babylonian or Egyptian Euclid.
39. Forbes, R.J., Metallurgy in Antiquity,
Leiden, NL, Brill, 1950, p.46.
40. Farrington, Benjamin, Science in Antiquity Oxford,
UK, Home University Library, 1947, p.24.
Classification: step towards
Alfred North Whitehead, speaking
of how the Arabs transmitted to Europe the mathematics thus derived
from the Middle East, argues that it was in their 'classification'
ability through which they made their most important contribution.
He holds that classification is a halfway house between the immediate
concreteness of the individual thing and the complete abstraction
of the mathematical notions. 41 He then points out: 42
The Arabic notation had
equipped the Science [of Mathematics] with almost perfect technical
efficiency in the manipulation of numbers. This relief from a
struggle with authentical details (as instanced, for example,
in the Egyptian Arithmetic of B.C. 1600) gave room for a development
which had already been faintly anticipated in later Greek mathematics.
Though it is
anticipating somewhat, Whitehead's subsequent observation shows
how the Indo-European contribution in the end redounded to the
benefit of Technology as well. Thus he wrote: 43
Nothing is more impressive than
the fact that as mathematics withdrew increasingly into the upper
regions of ever greater extremes of abstract thought, it returned
back to earth with a corresponding growth of importance for the
analysis of concrete fact.
As we shall
endeavor to show, Science developed by the play of philosophical
minds upon the data of Technology - and of course, using the
skills of the latter in the manufacture of instruments of measurement
41. Whitehead, Alfred, N., "Mathematics
as an Element in the History of Thought," in The World
of Mathematics, edited by J. R. Newman, New York, NY, Simon
and Schuster, 1956, vol.1, p.409.
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
Previous Chapter Next
42. Whitehead, A.N. ibid., p.410.
43. Whitehead, A.N. ibid., p.412.