The first problem relevant to the history of Greek philosophy is the placement of Heraclitus’s philosophical theory. To further clarify the problem, the argument that will be posed here will claim that Heraclitus’s theory is anachronistic to that of the Milesian school of Philosophy, and should not belong alongside other philosophers such as Democritus and Pythagoras

Pre-Socratic philosophers were concerned with the world as a whole and trying to define the origin of the universe. One of the earlier schools of pre- Socratic philosophy was the Milesian school of philosophy. The philosophers of this school, such as Thales and Anaximenes focused on trying to explain the origin of the universe as a result of natural causes, such as water and air respectively. Heraclitus, in his philosophical theories, attempted to explain the cause for the universe as a result of natural causes, that cause being fire. In support of this argument, Frederick Copleston mentions that “now, it might seem at first sight that Heraclitus is merely ringing the changes on the old Ionian theme as though because Thales made Reality to be Water and Anaximenes Air, Heraclitus, simply in order to find something different from his predecessors, fixed on Fire.” ( Copleston 1993, p. 41)

When compared to other philosophical doctrines during his period such as that of Pythagoras and Democritus, Heraclitus doctrine stands out. This is because both Pythagoras and Democritus have infused mathematical and scientific concepts in their doctrines respectively, which detaches itself from those theories of the Milesian school, in which the concept was based on natural causes and not proper scientific theories. Thus, I feel, that in order to understand the part of Heraclitus’s philosophy, that explains the origin of the universe with the help of the substance fire, it should be studied alongside the philosophies of Thales, Anaximenes, etc, and not alongside the more ‘advanced’ theories of philosophers such as Democritus and Pythagoras.

The second problem in Greek philosophy that will be dealt with is the historical misinterpretation of Sophism. This particular school focused more on teaching rhetoric in cities such as Athens, which was a major shift from the previous schools of philosophy. It was because of this reason that it came under much criticism by philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. As these two philosophers are considered to be the greatest philosophers to ever exists, their works and texts have in many ways become axiomatic in the way in which we perceive and interpret ancient and medieval Greek philosophy.

Thus, while studying Sophism, there is a certain misrepresentation as many have taken a biased view on sophism and has perceived it through the works of Aristotle and Plato- "It is particularly through the opposition to Socrates and Plato that the Sophists have come into such disrepute that the word now usually signifies that, by false reasoning, some truth is either refuted and made dubious, or something false is proved and made plausible."( Copleston 1993, p. 85) Due to this, the most valuable contributions of Sophism have often gone unnoticed.

It is through sophism that a certain transition can be identified. The pre-Socratic philosophers focused on the universal aspect of philosophy, in an effort to find the origin of the universe and what it was made up of. This objectivity was later replaced by the sophists, who preferred a more subjective approach, instead exploring the ideas of  self.  Thus it is through sophism that a certain paradigm shift, from the object to the subject, can be identified. Another factor that needs to be noted is that many of the afore-mentioned ‘axiomatic’ work by the hegemonic philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle and Socrates focused on the self rather than the object. Thus their works and texts wouldn’t have come into existence if the transition from the object to the subject hadn’t have happened in the first place. Therefore even though the ideas that emerged out of sophism were used by these philosophers as a foundation, the sophist has not been given the due credit they deserve.

The last problem within Greek philosophy discussed within this paper will be regarding the under-appreciation of the Spartan philosopher Lycurgus and his philosophical teachings. Lycurgus was a Spartan philosopher who lived around 800 BC. He is credited with the establishment and the transformation of Sparta as a normal Greek city-state, to a highly militarized one. Some of the values that were put forth by him were similar to the traditional stoic values, for example, its emphasis on personal ethics such as attempting to control the ability to feel pleasure or pain. Also, stoicism was greatly influenced by the teachings of Socrates.

The argument that I wish to pose is that the predominant values of stoicism belonged to Lycurgus, but due to the hegemonic presence of Socrates and taking into consideration the historical events of the time, those values have now been credited to Socrates. According to Frederick Copleston, “the first point to be stressed is the need for seeing any philosophical system in its historical setting and connections.” ( Copleston 1993, p. 8) Keeping this reference in mind, Socrates rose to prominence around the same time as when the Peloponnesian war took place ( around 430 BC to 400 BC), which was a civil war between Athens and Sparta. A war between states is not only a conflict of military forces but also a conflict of ideas. Due to the highly hostile situation at the time, any work by Socrates would most definitely be influenced by the war. Thus, considering the predominance of Socrates in terms of public image, any work of his commenting on the ideas or the philosophy of Sparta, and thus of Lycurgus, could have been interpreted as being as Socrates' own work rather than the work of some other philosopher. As Athens at the time was the hub of philosophical development, it can be easily interpreted that the Athenians believed that the stoic ideas developed out of the works of Socrates rather than the work of some philosopher who belonged to their immediate enemy.

In conclusion, the entire canon of western philosophy is not watertight and definitely, has some problems. Some of these problems have been analyzed here and could be explored further. This audacious attempt to find problems within western philosophy should not shift away from the importance of this epoch in terms of its relevance on future philosophical debate. Thus, we can say that the philosophical doctrines to come out of Greek philosophy can be considered as bedrock or a foundation for much of the philosophical debate in the contemporary era.

REFERENCES-

Copleston, Frederick. 1993. A History of Philosophy. Double Day : New York