said, "you need not feel your instruction has been entirely to no purpose" With that, the student was expelled.
There is a well-worn belief that this lofty view arose from the Greek's slave-based culture, in which all practical matters were rele-gated to the slaves.  Perhaps so, but I incline to the view that the Greeks felt that philosophy was a sport, an intellectual game.  We regard the amateur in sports as a gentleman socially superior to the professional who makes his living at it.  In line with this concept of purity, we take almost ridiculous precautions to make sure that the contestants in the Olympic games arc free of any taint of professionalism.  The Greek rationalization for the "cult of uselessness" may similarly have been based on a feeling that to allow mundane knowledge (such as the dis-tance from Athens to Corinth) to intrude on abstract thought was to allow imperfection to enter the Eden of true philosophy.  Whatever the rationalization, the Greek thinkers were severely limited by their attitude.  Greece was not barren of practical contributions to civilization, but even its great engineer, Archimedes of Syracuse, refused to write about his practical inventions and discoveries; to maintain his amateur status, he broadcast only his achievements in pure mathematics.  And lack of interest in earthly things-in invention, in experiment, in the study of nature-was but one of the factors that put bounds on Greek thought.  The Greeks' emphasis on purely abstract and formal study-indeed, their very success in geometry-led them into a second great error and, eventually, to a dead end.
Seduced by the success of the axioms in developing a system of geometry, the Greeks came to think of the axioms as "absolute truths" and to suppose that other branches of knowledge could be developed from similar "absolute truths." Thus in astronomy they eventually took as self-evident axioms the notions that (I ) the earth was motionless and the center of the universe, and (2) whereas the earth was corrupt and imperfect, the heavens were eternal, changeless, and perfect.  Since the Greeks considered the circle the perfect curve and since the heavens were perfect, it followed that all the heavenly bodies must move in circles around the earth.  In time their observations (arising from navigation and calendar making) showed that the planets did not move in perfect-ly simple circles, and so they were forced to allow planets to move in ever more complicated combinations of circles, which, about 150 A.D., were formulated as an uncomfortably complex system by Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) at Alexandria.  Similarly, Aristotle worked up fanciful theories of motion from "self-evident" axioms, such as the proposition that the speed of an ob'ect's fall was proportional to its weight. (Anyone could see that a stone fell faster than a feather.)
Now this worship of deduction from self-evident axioms was bound to wind up at the edge of a precipice, with no place to go.  After the Greeks had worked out all the implications of the axioms, further important discoveries in mathematics or astronomy seemed out of the question.  Philosophic knowledge appeared complete and perfect, and, for nearly 2,000 years after the Golden Age of Greece, when questions involving the material universe arose, there was a tendency to settle matters to the satisfaction of all by saying, "Aristotle says or, "Euclid says.

Having solved the problems of mathematics and astronomy, the Greeks turned to more subtle and challenging fields of knowledge.  One was the field of the human soul.
Plato was far more interested in such questions as "What is justice?" or "What is virtue?" than in why rain fell or how the planets moved.  As the supreme moral philosopher of Greece, he superseded Aristotle, the supreme natural philosopher.  Ile Greek thinkers of the Roman period found themselves drawn more and more to the subtle delights of moral ph'osophy and away from the apparent sterility of natural philos-opby.  The last development in ancient philosophy was an exceedingly mystical "neo-Platonism" formulated by Plotinus about 250 A.D.
Christianity, with its emphasis on the nature of God and His rela-tion to man, introduced an entirely new dimension into the subject mat-ter of moral philosophy and increased its superiority as an intellectual pursuit over natural philosophy.  From 200 A.D. to 1200 A.D., Europeans concerned themselves almost exclusivel - with moral philosophy, in par-ticular with theology.  Natural ph' osopby was nearly forgotten.
The Arabs, however, managed to preserve Aristotle and Ptolemy through the Middle Ages, and, from them, Greek natural philosophy eventually filtered back to Western Europe.  By 1200, Aristotle bad been rediscovered.  Further infusions came from the dying Byzantine Empire, which was the last area in Europe that maintained a continuous cultural tradition from the great days of Greece.
The first and most natural consequence of the rediscovery of Aris-totle was the application of his system of logic and reason to theology.  About 1250, the Italian theologian Thomas Aquinas established the system called "Thomism," based on Aristotelian principles, which still represents the basic theology of the Roman Catholic Church.  But men soon began to apply the revival of Greek thought to secular fields as
well.Because the leaders of the Renaissance shifted emphasis from matters concerning God to the works of humanity, they were called "humanists," and the study of literature, art, and history is still referred to as "the humanities."
To the Greek natural philosophy , the Renaissance thinkers brought a fresh outlook, for the old views no longer entirely satisfied.  In 1543 the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus published a book that went so far as to reject a basic axiom of astronomy: he proposed that the