Why Bacon Hated the Greeks

In the first book of The New Organon, Bacon presents a lot of history that needs to be rejected or, at least, ignored. In order to establish his own conception of how natural science should progress, Bacon has to show the value of his new method as well as the disadvantage of the old. The Greeks are Bacon's main challengers, so his attacks on the "darkness of antiquity" (122) are directed primarily against them. Because Bacon must demonstrate the necessity of his science and repudiate the old way of doing things, he is forced to maintain an anti-historical position that induces him to make candid and sometimes incorrect claims.

Bacon accuses the Greeks of many things, i.e. having overactive imaginations (65), jumping to conclusions (67), producing theories bereft of fruit (73), and being obsessed with profitless speculations (116), just to name a few. In light of his project, these objections are at least minimally plausible (as much as it pains me to say so). But in a few places Bacon's defense of method takes him too far. Look in section 77, where he calls the systems of Aristotle and Plato "planks of lighter and less solid material, [that] floated on the waves of time and were preserved." Believing that things as revered as the work of Plato and Aristotle were not worth the reverence and that the individuals throughout the ages had such poor judgment as to pick the less serious material to preserve is unusual. The mistrust is dangerous, and the lack of respect flagrant (especially after he claimed to be no match for them in the Preface). His mistrust of history is seen in his clear dismissal of figures like Herodotus and Plutarch (72).

Bacon also calls Plato and Aristotle sophists, grouping them with their intellectual antagonists. It is apt to say that - given the nature of the discipline to which the two men were committed - Bacon's interpretation is expected. Grouping Plato and Aristotle with those that they were explicitly against is not expected (and may not be intellectually respectable).

Lastly, Bacon's repudiation of history may be responsible for his comments on inventors and heroes. His claim that the benefits resulting from the action of heroes lasts only a few ages is a hasty one, if not an over-statement (129). A quick review of Greek history would lay bare that if not for heroes (such as those at Thermopylae), the entire history of the Western world would be changed.

Even though it is understandable that Bacon must reject the systems of ancient Greek thinkers, his eagerness to disregard history leads him to hasty statements and misguided conclusions about the importance and ability of his predecessors.