“and the latter’s insistence that mathematics not be applied to natural phenomenon was a greater impediment to the development of science than anything in Plato.”

Where does Aristotle insist such a thing? There is a complicated story about the conceptual transformation that was necessary fundamentally in mathematics to make it even possible for “mathematics” be applied to certain natural phenomena, but surely Aristotle didn’t deny that mathematics was applicable to astronomical motions. The problem was far deeper than the Popperian inspired blame-game-history-of-philosophy suggests. For Aristotle, the smallest number was 2, in order for modern mathematical physics to be possible required deep changes to the philosophy of mathematics. Blaming Aristotle for impeding modern mathematical physics is far too superficial an understanding of how momentous the development of the conceptuality necessary for that possibility to arrive for thinking.

Platonism as folks think about it is also much more tied to various strains of Platonic interpretation in Europe during the Renaissance and then especially in Britain in the early modern era up through the 19th century. In the ancient world it was much more complex. For instance we talk about neo-Platonists now but that’s a made up category by us moderns. Separating out Aristotle from Plato (or even the Stoics) in the ancient world was tricky. Not that we should find that surprising. Take a few of the major philosophers in say the analytic tradition of the 20th century and you’ll find lots of influences and changes over time.

My personal opinion is that what matters with the rise of real physics (as we think of it) was the mathematization of measurements and theories. Compare Descartes physics with Newton’s and it’s really clear that was the big change. I think you could argue that this is true of many other fields too that go through that move from more qualitative science into quantitative analysis (i.e. math) However before we assume too much from that if there is one area where Platonists still have a presence in the academy it’s in mathematics! (I’m a constructivist myself – but I’d be lying if I hadn’t encountered a bunch of platonists) So Platonism isn’t quite as ridiculous as we portray it. Typically it seems ludicrous because we haven’t analyzed issues at a sufficiently deep level or have a superficial appreciation of how ancient philosophers (or even medieval ones) actually thought.

My final thought is that Platonism sounds especially ridiculous because we tend to read it as a cosmology (i.e. physics) rather than fundamental ontology. Now even as ontology I find it wrong headed. But it’s just nowhere near as silly as most readings put it. (I’d say that about Berkeley as well who people ridicule even more than Plato when they encounter him)

another good point. might revise my assessment here. the main issue seems to be that aristotle was wrong on a lot of small/medium issues/intuitions. plato got at the root of it.

And back to Aristotle serving as an impediment to the development of the modern mathematical natural sciences, I think Aristotle’s authoritativeness was a big part of the problem, but not the only one. Aristotle’s physics is in its own way deeply resonant with our intuitions, and arguably more consonant with our common-sense engagement with the world than Platonism. Had the more radical (Averroist) interpretations of Aristotle not brought down the Vatican thunder, who knows how things might’ve gone? I wouldn’t go so far as Duhem does when he says that the Condemnation of 1277 was the birth of modern science, but there’s a grain of truth to it — a grain which ought to stick in the craw of whiggish historians of science.

For more on the Condemnation of 1277: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/condemnation/

just a minor addendum, early daoism seems pretty quasi-scientific in its focus on the quest for immortality. it’s rep kind of went into decline when the elixirs kept killing ppl. i know there were some idealistic trends in chinese thought, but to my knowledge they were marginal or minor. nothing equivalent to platonism or advaita.

I do know a bit about chinese philosophy. Confucianism is much more concerns with morals and virtues and how to lead a proper life whereas platonic philosophy (and western in general) focuses on metaphysics and epistemology. This is why we discuss allegory of the cave, watch the matrix, and treat knowledge as objective and absolute. Taoism is very spiritual and also less concerned with metaphysics and epistemology.

Don’t want to stretch myself too thin though – is there an expert out there?

first, even limiting “western” to the abrahamic religions, you’re around 1/2. though i know you can debate the influence of platonism in islam and judaism (i think personally that all western religions broadly speak engage with, even if they don’t promote, platonism). second, i think much of indian philosophy reflects the same sensibility as platonism. this explains the arguments by some ancients and moderns for a hindu influence upon neoplatonism (both are dominantly monistic for example, though i think hindu monism as dominant view post-dates neoplatonism). do you disagree with this contention? the dominant forms of chinese philosophy are arguably much more pragmatic and empirical without the otherworldly platonic tinge, though i think a more abstract indian element was introduced with buddhism filling the same niche. anyone care to offer up an indigenous chinese equivalent of platonism? i can’t think of one off the top of my head (does daoism count?)

My favorite contemplation on Plato came in my old Aesthetics class (basically, the philosophy of what is art). He was the go-to guy for everything wrong about how people think about art ^_^

this is a great point. aristotle was very wrong on many points. but the big issue between him and plato from my own perspective is that the latter’s relatively “tighter” theoretical framework made it a more coherent model for people to latch on to. aristotle’s incorrectness was more piecemeal, and his retardation of science had to do with his eminence as a greater thinker. plato’s to some extent too, but i do think that the core ideas of platonism are highly attractive to human beings and so are a very stable alternative intellectual equilibrium from modern science.

FTR, I love ‘em both. “To be a friend to Plato is to be a greater friend to truth.”

-Eminem