Just Thinking About Philosophy

I am thinking that it is apparent to most people that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are the real power horses of philosophy. Socrates did not write down his thoughts or his teachings, yet he is the seminal provoker of thinking on such subjects as piety, morality, courage, justice, and boxers versus briefs. His chief and prize student, Plato, became the very epitome and essence of philosophy. Plato then passed his legacy on to his most strikingly brilliant student Aristotle whose unbridled comprehension nurtured and fed the beginnings of scientific observation while he became the first real empirical scientist and the most influential thinker of western civilization. Although Plato called Aristotle the Academy's brightest and most learned student and the "intelligence of the school", Aristotle himself always thought Plato gave too much homework. We can see some pretty good examples of the thinkers and the stinkers of Greek philosophy in the diametric views and thinking of Zeno of Citium and Epicurus. The Stoic philosophy of living life while trying to cultivate virtue for the greatest good was founded by Zeno of Citium, who later thought up the idea for Circus Maximus at Caesar's Palace in Vegas, even though that might sound completely out of character for him. Seemingly on the opposite end of the scale is the philosophy of Epicureanism, which was brought to us by the suggestive mind of Epicurus. His self-indulgent philosophy of pleasure seeking put forth the somewhat appealing idea that the only good in life is pleasure. That too was to become very popular in the Nevada desert. Take a look around you and you will see that the "Eat, Drink, and be Merry" crowd and their Hedonistic philosophy still holds on to a lot of very enthusiastic fans, maybe more than ever. Ever hear of "Spring Break?" At this point, I feel a need to point out the differences between Epicureanism and the Hedonist. Epicurus at least attempted to create a higher state of redeeming values as he admonished moderation, self-control, and honorable behavior. On the other hand, the Hedonist found purpose in pursuing after creature comforts and pleasure as they participated in life's worldliness without inhibitions. Epicurus was able to justify his lust on an intellectual and moral level. The Hedonist felt no need for any attached strings of morality and they certainly didn't feel any obligation to justify their lust. Pyrrho of Elis, who was doing his thinking around the same time that Stoic thought and Epicureanism was popular, came up with the "Dead End" path of Skepticism, which basically said we can know nothing. Our senses are deceiving us and deliver no real knowledge of the way things truly are. Therefore, since we can know nothing, "we should treat all things with indifference and make no judgments." I call it the Sergeant Shultz philosophy; "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing". I must say that although there is a certain aspect of laid back, no worries attractiveness to this attitude, it reeks of philosophical blindness, which seems to be featured in Skepticism thinking, and I don't believe it is particularly useful to anyone.