What do you think?
Rate this book
Isonomia and the Origins of Philosophy
In Isonomia and the Origins of Philosophy —published originally in Japanese and now available in four languages—Kōjin Karatani questions the idealization of ancient Athens as the source of philosophy and democracy by placing the origins instead in Ionia, a set of Greek colonies located in present-day Turkey. Contrasting Athenian democracy with Ionian isonomia—a system based on non-rule and a lack of social divisions whereby equality is realized through the freedom to immigrate—Karatani shows how early Greek thinkers from Heraclitus to Pythagoras were inseparably linked to the isonomia of their Ionian origins, not democracy. He finds in isonomia a model for how an egalitarian society not driven by class antagonism might be put into practice, and resituates Socrates's work and that of his intellectual heirs as the last philosophical attempts to practice isonomia's utopic potentials. Karatani subtly interrogates the democratic commitments of Western philosophy from within and argues that the key to transcending their contradictions lies not in Athenian democracy, with its echoes of imperialism, slavery, and exclusion, but in the openness of isonomia.
176 pages, Hardcover
Published September 1, 2017
31 people are currently reading
564 people want to read
About the author
Kōjin Karatani
89 books94 followersKōjin Karatani (柄谷 行人 Karatani Kōjin, born August 6, 1941, Amagasaki) is a Japanese philosopher and literary critic.
Karatani was educated at University of Tokyo, where he received a BA in economics and an MA in English literature. The Gunzō Literary Prize, which he received at the age of 27 for an essay on Natsume Sōseki, was his first critical acclaim as a literary critic. While teaching at Hosei University, Tokyo, he wrote extensively about modernity and postmodernity with a particular focus on language, number, and money, concepts that form the subtitle of one of his central books: Architecture as Metaphor.
In 1975, he was invited to Yale University to teach Japanese literature as a visiting professor, where he met Paul de Man and Fredric Jameson and began to work on formalism. Starting from a study of Natsume Sōseki, the variety of the subjects examined by Karatani became so wide that he earned the nickname The Thinking Machine.
Karatani collaborated with novelist Kenji Nakagami, to whom he introduced the works of Faulkner. With Nakagami, he published Kobayashi Hideo o koete (Overcoming Kobayashi Hideo). The title is an ironic reference to “Kindai no chokoku” (Overcoming Modernity), a symposium held in the summer of 1942 at Kyoto Imperial University (now Kyoto University) at which Hideo Kobayashi (whom Karatani and Nakagami did not hold in great esteem) was a participant.
He was also a regular member of ANY, the international architects' conference that was held annually for the last decade of the 20th century and that also published an architectural/philosophical series with Rizzoli under the general heading of Anyone.
Since 1990, Karatani has been regularly teaching at Columbia University as a visiting professor.
Karatani founded the New Associationist Movement (NAM) in Japan in the summer of 2000. NAM was conceived as a counter–capitalist/nation-state association, inspired by the experiment of LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems, based on non-marketed currency). He was also the co-editor, with Akira Asada, of the Japanese quarterly journal, Hihyōkūkan (Critical Space), until it ended in 2002.
In 2006, Karatani retired from the chair of the International Center for Human Sciences at Kinki University, Osaka, where he had been teaching.
(from Wikipedia)
Karatani was educated at University of Tokyo, where he received a BA in economics and an MA in English literature. The Gunzō Literary Prize, which he received at the age of 27 for an essay on Natsume Sōseki, was his first critical acclaim as a literary critic. While teaching at Hosei University, Tokyo, he wrote extensively about modernity and postmodernity with a particular focus on language, number, and money, concepts that form the subtitle of one of his central books: Architecture as Metaphor.
In 1975, he was invited to Yale University to teach Japanese literature as a visiting professor, where he met Paul de Man and Fredric Jameson and began to work on formalism. Starting from a study of Natsume Sōseki, the variety of the subjects examined by Karatani became so wide that he earned the nickname The Thinking Machine.
Karatani collaborated with novelist Kenji Nakagami, to whom he introduced the works of Faulkner. With Nakagami, he published Kobayashi Hideo o koete (Overcoming Kobayashi Hideo). The title is an ironic reference to “Kindai no chokoku” (Overcoming Modernity), a symposium held in the summer of 1942 at Kyoto Imperial University (now Kyoto University) at which Hideo Kobayashi (whom Karatani and Nakagami did not hold in great esteem) was a participant.
He was also a regular member of ANY, the international architects' conference that was held annually for the last decade of the 20th century and that also published an architectural/philosophical series with Rizzoli under the general heading of Anyone.
Since 1990, Karatani has been regularly teaching at Columbia University as a visiting professor.
Karatani founded the New Associationist Movement (NAM) in Japan in the summer of 2000. NAM was conceived as a counter–capitalist/nation-state association, inspired by the experiment of LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems, based on non-marketed currency). He was also the co-editor, with Akira Asada, of the Japanese quarterly journal, Hihyōkūkan (Critical Space), until it ended in 2002.
In 2006, Karatani retired from the chair of the International Center for Human Sciences at Kinki University, Osaka, where he had been teaching.
(from Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
December 5, 2022
Isonomia, individual freedom above all else, is discussed in contrast with democracy and the Athenian conception of first mover. This book questions our society’s fundamental principles.
September 1, 2018
Ревізіоністська за характером книга Каратані намагається позбутися афіноцентричності давньогрецького канону та по новому прочитати досократиків. Як відомо, філософія зародилась не на материковій Греції, а в Іонії - грецьких колоніях на західному узбережжі Малої Азії. Саме тут мешкали більшість філософів, яких приянято називати досократиками: Парменід, Геракліт, Фалес, Піфагор та інші. Каратані вважає, що колонії мали іншій суспільний лад, ніж материнські міста, бо не наслідували їхню класову ієрархію (проводяться аналогії з колоніями вікінгів в Ісландії та англійців в Америці). Тут існувала так звана ізономія, де ізо значить рівний, а номос - загальне користування, тобто лад, за якого існували рівні права, але не було кратос - влади авторитета. Саме ізономія зробила можливою появу філософської думки. Каратані робить несподіваний крок, політизуючи філософію досократиків - вони, як відомо, не писали безпосередньо про політику, але сама їхня філософія була відповіддю на кризу іонійських міст, та спробою її осмислити. Завершується книга аналізом впливу досократиків на Афіни, де Сократ трактується як прихильник ізономії на противагу диктатурі та демократії. А це, відповідно, вимагає по іншому сприйняти і учнів Сократа - Платона та Ксенофана.
Я не фахівець з філософії, щоб кваліфіковано прокоментувати цю працю, але в неї є очевидне слабке місце. Брак фактичних відомостей про життя в містах Іонії та самих досократиків зводить багато тверджень Каратані до рівня припущень, правдоподібних, але не доведених.
Я не фахівець з філософії, щоб кваліфіковано прокоментувати цю працю, але в неї є очевидне слабке місце. Брак фактичних відомостей про життя в містах Іонії та самих досократиків зводить багато тверджень Каратані до рівня припущень, правдоподібних, але не доведених.
September 17, 2020
I very much enjoyed reading this book. It refers to many important and well-known Greek characters; one more, Procrustes, isn't mentioned by name, but makes an appearance in the form of the author himself, who nips and tucks Greek history of the 10th to 4th centuries BCE into the bed of his theory. Following the Marxian example, this theory projects the course of history onto the one-dimensional aspect of modes of commodities exchange, of which four are distinguished; A - reciprocity of gift and obligatory counter-gift, B - taking by force, C - money economy, and D - which remains mysterious, being negatively defined as none of the above, transcending them, but somewhat resembling A. These are associated with socio-political forms, viz. A - clan society, B - ruler/ruled (feudal) relationship, C - democracy (here used worryingly synonymously with 'tyranny of the majority'), and D - the eponymous isonomia.
The author names three examples of societies that in his view realised isonomia; the Ionian colonies before the Lydian/Persian conquest, the colony of Iceland before the Danish conquest, and the New England colonies before the War of Independence. While the concrete form isonomia would take remains obscure, these examples illustrate that it requires a highly mobile, uprooted population, presupposes the availability of practically limitless expansion space (quite possibly at the expense of an indigenous population), and is likely to succumb to external force or inner contingencies. Nevertheless, for some reason the author appears to see in it a higher, future form of human society.
The proposed socio-political history model did not fully convince me, but the book offers a very interesting view on the history of philosophy. It gives a compelling argument for a uniquely Pythagorean root of Plato's theory of ideas, setting these two philosophers' notion of a duality of worlds - one of ideas, one of sensory illusions - against the unity of the world in Ionian philosophy down to the sophists, and assigns the Eleatics a sensible role in the process. Although a critical reassessment of the Platonist account of the development of Greek philosophy isn't all that novel (and was e.g. already popularised in Pirsig's 1974 novel 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance'), the present book presents a clear and convincing narrative with some delightful insights, which make it very worthwhile reading.
The author names three examples of societies that in his view realised isonomia; the Ionian colonies before the Lydian/Persian conquest, the colony of Iceland before the Danish conquest, and the New England colonies before the War of Independence. While the concrete form isonomia would take remains obscure, these examples illustrate that it requires a highly mobile, uprooted population, presupposes the availability of practically limitless expansion space (quite possibly at the expense of an indigenous population), and is likely to succumb to external force or inner contingencies. Nevertheless, for some reason the author appears to see in it a higher, future form of human society.
The proposed socio-political history model did not fully convince me, but the book offers a very interesting view on the history of philosophy. It gives a compelling argument for a uniquely Pythagorean root of Plato's theory of ideas, setting these two philosophers' notion of a duality of worlds - one of ideas, one of sensory illusions - against the unity of the world in Ionian philosophy down to the sophists, and assigns the Eleatics a sensible role in the process. Although a critical reassessment of the Platonist account of the development of Greek philosophy isn't all that novel (and was e.g. already popularised in Pirsig's 1974 novel 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance'), the present book presents a clear and convincing narrative with some delightful insights, which make it very worthwhile reading.
September 14, 2021
Ancient philosophy has a lot of baggage associated with it. In particular the figure of Socrates. In this book, Karatani traces the development of thought that came form Ionia; a country adjacent to Greece that produced a good number of pre-Socratic philosophers. These philosophers were all influenced by a novel form of societal structure called isonomia, or “no rule”. These people lived in a place where movement was unrestricted and economic equality was the foundation. This society produced thought that stood in opposition to many other ideologies, most notably the one predominant in Athens, yet it persisted through the better part of a two centuries. Ionian thought disregarded the human-looking gods, and conceived of matter that moved itself. An imminent plane of existence.
Karatani presents an argument that Socrates’ place in the history of philosophy has been misunderstood. That Socrates attempted, intentionally or not, to reintroduce the idea of isonomia to Athens in an attempt to bypass certain tendencies of democracy. Democracy leads to tyranny. An instituting of “no rule” has a potential future of freedom. I enjoyed the materialism of this book. And the introduction to Ionian thought. I’d not learned much about the pre-Socratic philosophers before now. And now I want to learn more. Which is a sign of an important book.
Also, Karatani keeps a very conversational tone throughout. It feels like someone is talking to you about this cool idea they had. Dialogue is a sign of good philosophy.
Karatani presents an argument that Socrates’ place in the history of philosophy has been misunderstood. That Socrates attempted, intentionally or not, to reintroduce the idea of isonomia to Athens in an attempt to bypass certain tendencies of democracy. Democracy leads to tyranny. An instituting of “no rule” has a potential future of freedom. I enjoyed the materialism of this book. And the introduction to Ionian thought. I’d not learned much about the pre-Socratic philosophers before now. And now I want to learn more. Which is a sign of an important book.
Also, Karatani keeps a very conversational tone throughout. It feels like someone is talking to you about this cool idea they had. Dialogue is a sign of good philosophy.
January 30, 2023
Isonomy or democracy?
The general acceptance of today's world regarding the public sphere is the presentation of individual freedom in the name of democracy. But how long does democracy allow a person to live up to his rights in this area of individual freedom? How correct are the norms of public morality and ethics, and how much is the individual himself in the face of these rules?
Further questions and criticisms regarding this topic can be developed. The book also has a very intense content in this sense. Referring to the present, the author analyzed the social and philosophical developments of the ancient Greek period and revealed the right and wrong in the geography where the concepts of democracy and isonomy appeared. Today, whoever we ask about the ancient Greek period, first begins to tell about the city-state of Athens and the philosophical developments in this city-state. Although this does not seem like a problem at first glance, it is actually a problem. Because the phenomenon of democracy that prevails today is not of Athenian origin, but of Anatolian origin. At this point, the author reveals that the Ionian city-state (today Izmir was a city-state built around the Aydin provinces), the philosophical school developed by Heraclitus and Pythagoras influenced Athens, and all the philosophers who lived in the ancient Greek period were classified according to the Ionian school.
The issues of individual identity and isonomy experienced in Anatolia gave rise to the phenomenon of ethics, and the experiment of both isonomic and democratic society structure was first tried in the Ionian state. In this sense, the author also evaluates the Ionian school as the main topic to focus on in this book.
Isonomy is a system of rights that can be applied in agricultural societies and is based on absolute equality. It has influenced the whole world until the industrial revolution process and, in fact, it has been the first point of movement of socialism. I don't know what kind of adjective can be used for social and individual equality for the post-industrial revolution process, but the state of democracy that has moved to the present day has pushed people of thought to talk about permissiveness again.
The book also shows us how philosophy reveals this through a term that is actually a sub-topic of sociology. In this sense, philosophy has grown one more step in our eyes. I wish the interested person pleasant reading already.
The general acceptance of today's world regarding the public sphere is the presentation of individual freedom in the name of democracy. But how long does democracy allow a person to live up to his rights in this area of individual freedom? How correct are the norms of public morality and ethics, and how much is the individual himself in the face of these rules?
Further questions and criticisms regarding this topic can be developed. The book also has a very intense content in this sense. Referring to the present, the author analyzed the social and philosophical developments of the ancient Greek period and revealed the right and wrong in the geography where the concepts of democracy and isonomy appeared. Today, whoever we ask about the ancient Greek period, first begins to tell about the city-state of Athens and the philosophical developments in this city-state. Although this does not seem like a problem at first glance, it is actually a problem. Because the phenomenon of democracy that prevails today is not of Athenian origin, but of Anatolian origin. At this point, the author reveals that the Ionian city-state (today Izmir was a city-state built around the Aydin provinces), the philosophical school developed by Heraclitus and Pythagoras influenced Athens, and all the philosophers who lived in the ancient Greek period were classified according to the Ionian school.
The issues of individual identity and isonomy experienced in Anatolia gave rise to the phenomenon of ethics, and the experiment of both isonomic and democratic society structure was first tried in the Ionian state. In this sense, the author also evaluates the Ionian school as the main topic to focus on in this book.
Isonomy is a system of rights that can be applied in agricultural societies and is based on absolute equality. It has influenced the whole world until the industrial revolution process and, in fact, it has been the first point of movement of socialism. I don't know what kind of adjective can be used for social and individual equality for the post-industrial revolution process, but the state of democracy that has moved to the present day has pushed people of thought to talk about permissiveness again.
The book also shows us how philosophy reveals this through a term that is actually a sub-topic of sociology. In this sense, philosophy has grown one more step in our eyes. I wish the interested person pleasant reading already.
March 1, 2021
This book is invaluable in how it chronicles the overshadowing of natural philosophy by the birthing of nominalism. Excellent!
July 9, 2020
I'm mostly critiquing the historiography here, as its shoddy at best and amateurish at worst.
(1) On the claims about Athenian democracy, he claims that the "warior-culture" came out of its system of governance without properly substantiating why or how. This is garbage scholarship.
(2) He claims that modern democracy is a balance between liberty (libertarianism) and equality (welfare state), and that these two principles contradict one another. They don't and claiming they do is proof of ignorance of the last 200 years of studies on work in ethical philosophy and justice.
(3) Using Ionia as a symbol of great governance, and using hearsay as your evidence, is embarrassing.
(4) The most important part, and the killer for anti-statist positions: Ionia couldn't defend itself from external threats. Not mentioning this is substantial. The security of a state is incredibly important and whould be taken into account when you're addressing
The tendency to fit history into a Marxist world history is frustrating. It comes across as lazy.
(1) On the claims about Athenian democracy, he claims that the "warior-culture" came out of its system of governance without properly substantiating why or how. This is garbage scholarship.
(2) He claims that modern democracy is a balance between liberty (libertarianism) and equality (welfare state), and that these two principles contradict one another. They don't and claiming they do is proof of ignorance of the last 200 years of studies on work in ethical philosophy and justice.
(3) Using Ionia as a symbol of great governance, and using hearsay as your evidence, is embarrassing.
(4) The most important part, and the killer for anti-statist positions: Ionia couldn't defend itself from external threats. Not mentioning this is substantial. The security of a state is incredibly important and whould be taken into account when you're addressing
The tendency to fit history into a Marxist world history is frustrating. It comes across as lazy.
October 9, 2019
Like progressives critiquing liberalism from the left, or nontheists critiquing theism via the OTF (Outsider Test for Faith), Karatani critiques the intellectual history of Western philosophical, religious, and political thought, from the East.
What I mean by comparing Karatani's "critique from the East" to "critique from the left" and the "Outsider Test for Faith" is that Karatani sets Westerners an example of how we can hold the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy inherited by Christianity to the same standards as we hold Ionian natural philosophy - just as philosophers like Karatani who were raised in Asian cultures can hold supernatural Asian religions to the same standards as Taoism and Confucianism, whose founders Karatani characterizes as "freethinkers," who "were not particularly religious themselves."
What I mean by comparing Karatani's "critique from the East" to "critique from the left" and the "Outsider Test for Faith" is that Karatani sets Westerners an example of how we can hold the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy inherited by Christianity to the same standards as we hold Ionian natural philosophy - just as philosophers like Karatani who were raised in Asian cultures can hold supernatural Asian religions to the same standards as Taoism and Confucianism, whose founders Karatani characterizes as "freethinkers," who "were not particularly religious themselves."
January 24, 2023
The actionable insight this book offers is that we should not aspire to democracy, but rather to isonomia. Isonomia is a state of affairs that obtains when people have genuine freedom of movement- there are no constraints of citizenship, employment, etc., so you can just go somewhere else if you're not happy. This has some striking effects. For one, class conflict is minimal because employers have limited leverage. Additionally, communities are incentivized to resolve conflicts and work towards consensus, in order to stay intact. This is to be contrasted with conflict resolution via majority rule.
Karatani puts forth three examples of possible isonomia-like conditions: ancient Ionia, medieval Iceland, and colonial America. He follows Arendt's On Revolution in locating the appeal of the American Revolution in the ideals of Jefferson, including his proposal for direct democracy via a system of wards. I would be very curious to hear more about Iceland.
Of course, most of the book is about Ionia. We are to contrast Athenian democracy and post-Socratic philosophy with the ideas of pre-Socratic Ionia. Typically, the pre-Socratics are treated as primitive natural scientists, and Socrates is credited with turning away from physics to invent the study of ethics in the Athenian polis. Here Karatani makes a move that should be obvious. He makes it relevant that Athens was a slave society. Why would we admire the ethics of slavers when, for example, the figure of Hippocrates (notable for demanding doctors provide their services to poor people for free) is right there?
So the Ionians, who live in relative isonomia and do not need to exploit, end up producing the most admirable insights that are usually credited to the Athenians. Particular to their thinking is a thoroughgoing naturalism. The gods are not anthropomorphic, humans are made of Democritean atoms, and concepts like "slavery" are arbitrary human inventions that cannot be justified by any appeal to higher principles. Thus Karatani brilliantly expands on the physics of the pre-Socratics to connect with their social philosophy. Aside, I just read and loved The Swerve: How the World Became Modern which makes a similar connection.
Karatani also contributes a fun construction connecting religion to "modes of exchange". In a Marxian spirit, a society's dominant mode of exchange is determinative of aspects of that society's dominant religion. Clan societies relying on reciprocal gift-giving tend towards animism, where offerings are made to spirits in order to put nature under one's control. Feudal societies based on the exchange of tribute for protection tend towards worship of gods who intervene upon request by prayer. Empires based on trade tend towards monotheism. Finally, isonomia is supposedly connected to a naturalism or a truly universal religion.
Overall, I buy the premise and I liked the argument and the history. It doesn't contain the answer to all of our problems (or does it? Maybe there is something to "freedom of movement") but it's nice to see such a strong reinterpretation of the pre-Socratics.
Karatani puts forth three examples of possible isonomia-like conditions: ancient Ionia, medieval Iceland, and colonial America. He follows Arendt's On Revolution in locating the appeal of the American Revolution in the ideals of Jefferson, including his proposal for direct democracy via a system of wards. I would be very curious to hear more about Iceland.
Of course, most of the book is about Ionia. We are to contrast Athenian democracy and post-Socratic philosophy with the ideas of pre-Socratic Ionia. Typically, the pre-Socratics are treated as primitive natural scientists, and Socrates is credited with turning away from physics to invent the study of ethics in the Athenian polis. Here Karatani makes a move that should be obvious. He makes it relevant that Athens was a slave society. Why would we admire the ethics of slavers when, for example, the figure of Hippocrates (notable for demanding doctors provide their services to poor people for free) is right there?
So the Ionians, who live in relative isonomia and do not need to exploit, end up producing the most admirable insights that are usually credited to the Athenians. Particular to their thinking is a thoroughgoing naturalism. The gods are not anthropomorphic, humans are made of Democritean atoms, and concepts like "slavery" are arbitrary human inventions that cannot be justified by any appeal to higher principles. Thus Karatani brilliantly expands on the physics of the pre-Socratics to connect with their social philosophy. Aside, I just read and loved The Swerve: How the World Became Modern which makes a similar connection.
Karatani also contributes a fun construction connecting religion to "modes of exchange". In a Marxian spirit, a society's dominant mode of exchange is determinative of aspects of that society's dominant religion. Clan societies relying on reciprocal gift-giving tend towards animism, where offerings are made to spirits in order to put nature under one's control. Feudal societies based on the exchange of tribute for protection tend towards worship of gods who intervene upon request by prayer. Empires based on trade tend towards monotheism. Finally, isonomia is supposedly connected to a naturalism or a truly universal religion.
Overall, I buy the premise and I liked the argument and the history. It doesn't contain the answer to all of our problems (or does it? Maybe there is something to "freedom of movement") but it's nice to see such a strong reinterpretation of the pre-Socratics.
May 23, 2023
Atina demokrasisi ile İyonya'daki izonomi, yani "hükmetmenin olmaması" üzerine kurulu yönetim biçiminin, eski Yunan doğa felsefesi, bilim ve siyasetini de kapsayacak şekilde yan yana getirip karşılaştırıldığı bir çalışma. Yazarın önceki kitabı "Dünya Tarihinin Yapısı"nda henüz gerçekleşmemiş olan D tipi mübadele biçiminin ilk örneğini bulduğu İyonya düşünce ve siyasetini bu kitapta etraflıca ele almış. İyonya doğa felsefesini ve bu dinamik, teleolojiye dayanmayan felsefenin modern felsefedeki ve özellikle Sokrates düşüncesindeki izlerini anlatan bölümler özellikle ilginç. Aynı şekilde, Platon'un bir yerde doğa filozoflarının izinden giden Sokrates'i farklı yorumlayıp tiranlığa giden Filozof kral imgesini oluşturmasını ele alan kısımlar da.
Sokrates'in koruyucu ruhu denebilecek, kimi içgörüleri kulağına fısıldadığını söyleyen daimon'unu analiz edildiği bölüm de ilgiye değer. Hegel için bilinçli tefekkürün bilinçdışı haliyken yazara göre diamon bastırılan İzonominin bilinçaltından geri dönüşünü ifade ediyor. Bu mirasa Platon ile kinik filozof Diogenes çok farklı şekillerde sahip çıkıyorlar.
İyonya doğa felsefesi ile Atina'daki felsefe okulu arasındaki kırılım Pythagoras'ta gerçekleşiyor. Zira Pythagoras İyonya'daki Samos Adasında siyasi reform çalışmalarının tiranlığa evrilmesiyle hayal kırıklığı yaşayıp güney italya'ya gider ve orada bir mezhep kurar. Ona göre toplumun yüz yüze geldiği en büyük sorun halkın kendisidir çünkü halkın yönetimi sonunda tiranlıkla sonuçlanmıştır. Pythagoras bunun önüne geçmek için bedeni aşmak gerektiğinde karar kılar ve ikilik üzerine kurulu aşkın tınıları olan felsefesini geliştirir. Platon'un idealar teorisi bu düşünceyi miras alır. Gelgelelim İzonomi anlayışında ve İyonya doğa felsefesinde böyle bir ikilik söz konusu değildir, maddenin kendisi etkindir, olumsaldır ve Sokrates aslında bu düşünceyi miras almıştır. Ki özünde İyonya felsefesi herhangi bir aşkıncılığa ve dine dayanmaz. Bu felsefe ve yaşam biçimi, tarihin belli dönemlerinde, belli halklarda da ortaya çıkar, Amerika'ya ilk giden göçmenlerin kurduğu karşılıklı yardımlaşmaya dayanan topluluklarda olduğu gibi. Zira etrafta topraklar bol olduğundan düzen rekabet ve çekişmenin hükmünde değildir. Ancak bu yayılmacılık kısıtlandığında sorunlar baş gösterir, bireyi güvence altına alan yasalarla birlikte yasaların koruyucusu bürokratlar ve sınıf toplumu baş gösterir. Bu bürokrat sınıf iş bölümünde farklılıkların, ezcümle uzman, aristokrat ve köleler şeklinde ayrımların ortaya çıkmasına yol açar ya da destekler.
İlginç, ufuk açıcı bir kitap.
Sokrates'in koruyucu ruhu denebilecek, kimi içgörüleri kulağına fısıldadığını söyleyen daimon'unu analiz edildiği bölüm de ilgiye değer. Hegel için bilinçli tefekkürün bilinçdışı haliyken yazara göre diamon bastırılan İzonominin bilinçaltından geri dönüşünü ifade ediyor. Bu mirasa Platon ile kinik filozof Diogenes çok farklı şekillerde sahip çıkıyorlar.
İyonya doğa felsefesi ile Atina'daki felsefe okulu arasındaki kırılım Pythagoras'ta gerçekleşiyor. Zira Pythagoras İyonya'daki Samos Adasında siyasi reform çalışmalarının tiranlığa evrilmesiyle hayal kırıklığı yaşayıp güney italya'ya gider ve orada bir mezhep kurar. Ona göre toplumun yüz yüze geldiği en büyük sorun halkın kendisidir çünkü halkın yönetimi sonunda tiranlıkla sonuçlanmıştır. Pythagoras bunun önüne geçmek için bedeni aşmak gerektiğinde karar kılar ve ikilik üzerine kurulu aşkın tınıları olan felsefesini geliştirir. Platon'un idealar teorisi bu düşünceyi miras alır. Gelgelelim İzonomi anlayışında ve İyonya doğa felsefesinde böyle bir ikilik söz konusu değildir, maddenin kendisi etkindir, olumsaldır ve Sokrates aslında bu düşünceyi miras almıştır. Ki özünde İyonya felsefesi herhangi bir aşkıncılığa ve dine dayanmaz. Bu felsefe ve yaşam biçimi, tarihin belli dönemlerinde, belli halklarda da ortaya çıkar, Amerika'ya ilk giden göçmenlerin kurduğu karşılıklı yardımlaşmaya dayanan topluluklarda olduğu gibi. Zira etrafta topraklar bol olduğundan düzen rekabet ve çekişmenin hükmünde değildir. Ancak bu yayılmacılık kısıtlandığında sorunlar baş gösterir, bireyi güvence altına alan yasalarla birlikte yasaların koruyucusu bürokratlar ve sınıf toplumu baş gösterir. Bu bürokrat sınıf iş bölümünde farklılıkların, ezcümle uzman, aristokrat ve köleler şeklinde ayrımların ortaya çıkmasına yol açar ya da destekler.
İlginç, ufuk açıcı bir kitap.
February 22, 2023
I’m 80% done with Karatani’s book. I’m in awe of his intelligence. He is not creative like Elon. Instead has the greatest grasp of historical reflection that I’ve ever experienced. It feels like reading the “TRUTH”. With no bias besides that.
I’m overwhelmed. I’m an IONIAN. Born that way, and raised without conflict with my nature. I never knew Socrates so intimately. I now adore the man. He is up there with Leonardo Da Vinci.
This also is the time of AI. I read a lot about chatGPT. All kinds of opinions. To me, it is the first public example of the future. I’ve asked almost a hundred questions. Most I knew the answers to. On so many subjects. And chatGPT has only made one serious mistake. The remaining were missing some information I wished for but still valid. This is more impressive than any human could do today. People are worrying about an AI writing biased news…can you believe it! The problem is that all news is biased and such AI will begin to disrupt that.
chatGPT is a reflection of what we say about ourselves. Ten years from now it will have opinions about those thoughts. (I know I always wish to take credit for this prediction being on my schedule).
Back to Isonomia. It has kicked me in the butt. Reading those intellectuals writing from before Christ. They sound more cogent than what ours are saying today. And they diagram the same issues with humanity so clearly.
When I studied Philosophy on my own, back in my 20s, I was mostly concerned with democracy versus totalitarianism. I was not mature enough for the Ionian. Now I recognize it as one of the peaks of humanity.
For the last several years I was trying to design a world social structure that would prevent our current excesses. What I came up with was a world modeled on independent communities in constant war…
I’m overwhelmed. I’m an IONIAN. Born that way, and raised without conflict with my nature. I never knew Socrates so intimately. I now adore the man. He is up there with Leonardo Da Vinci.
This also is the time of AI. I read a lot about chatGPT. All kinds of opinions. To me, it is the first public example of the future. I’ve asked almost a hundred questions. Most I knew the answers to. On so many subjects. And chatGPT has only made one serious mistake. The remaining were missing some information I wished for but still valid. This is more impressive than any human could do today. People are worrying about an AI writing biased news…can you believe it! The problem is that all news is biased and such AI will begin to disrupt that.
chatGPT is a reflection of what we say about ourselves. Ten years from now it will have opinions about those thoughts. (I know I always wish to take credit for this prediction being on my schedule).
Back to Isonomia. It has kicked me in the butt. Reading those intellectuals writing from before Christ. They sound more cogent than what ours are saying today. And they diagram the same issues with humanity so clearly.
When I studied Philosophy on my own, back in my 20s, I was mostly concerned with democracy versus totalitarianism. I was not mature enough for the Ionian. Now I recognize it as one of the peaks of humanity.
For the last several years I was trying to design a world social structure that would prevent our current excesses. What I came up with was a world modeled on independent communities in constant war…
August 17, 2025
Ortaya attığı mesele cidden değerli ancak ele alış şekli ve kaynakların kullanımı açısından metodolojik sorunları hayli fazla.
Bununla birlikte, Ionia düşüncesinin Atina’da Sokrates’le temsil edildiğine yönelik ya da doğa filozoflarının topluma dair izonomik yaklaşımlarının mevcudiyetine dair vurguları, antik metinleri farklı bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirmeye götürebilecek nitelikte. Değerli bir bakış açısına sahip olmasına rağmen tarihyazımsal sıkıntılarından dolayı dikkatli okunması gereken bir kitap.
Son olarak izonomi ile demokrasiyi birbirine bu kadar karşıt iki sistem olarak ele almak mantıklı mı düşünmek lazım.
Bununla birlikte, Ionia düşüncesinin Atina’da Sokrates’le temsil edildiğine yönelik ya da doğa filozoflarının topluma dair izonomik yaklaşımlarının mevcudiyetine dair vurguları, antik metinleri farklı bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirmeye götürebilecek nitelikte. Değerli bir bakış açısına sahip olmasına rağmen tarihyazımsal sıkıntılarından dolayı dikkatli okunması gereken bir kitap.
Son olarak izonomi ile demokrasiyi birbirine bu kadar karşıt iki sistem olarak ele almak mantıklı mı düşünmek lazım.
August 4, 2024
Deconstruction of Ancient Greece. Excellent concepts for rethinking Ancient Greece and Ionia. I also used Jean-Pierre Vernant's book Myth and Thought Among the Greeks as a support for this reading. I highly recommend both works. Thank you.
Read
June 7, 2022Opin esisokraatikoista, kiinnostava näkökulma. Jokin filosofianhistoriallinen perusteos sopii hyvin rinnalle.
March 18, 2018
In Socrates, the source of Ionian philosophy made a return.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews