From works written down by four or five Greek guys, or by other guys who cited those Greek guys as the source.
The fact that our surviving records all happen to funnel through those guys is not proof that it all originated with those guys. It is highly likely that they were both building on an extensive unrecorded philosophical tradition, and participating in a broader contemporary cultural conversation whose other participants have merely not been lucky enough to have their names recorded by history.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle unoriginal? Enlightenment Europe is similarly the work done by a handful of geniuses participating in an intellectual culture. We can patently see their originality - what makes you so sure the Greeks did not have the same?
Nothing. I am not saying they weren't geniuses. I am merely pointing out that there is insufficient evidence for a definite conclusion either way.
Cf. Shakespeare. Yes, he was a genius, but not nearly so much of a genius as many people often claim, because a lot of people confuse "Shakespeare is our earliest surviving recorded source for a lot of features of the English language" for "Shakespeare single-handedly invented half of the English language", which is absurd.
And the great minds of the European Enlightenment may also have been genuinely great... but they are also nearly all rich men with patrons and leisure time, and the means to preserve their thoughts in writing. Our view on their history is much clearer than our view of the ancient Greeks, but there's still no telling exactly how much influence there was from their surrounding unrecorded culture, or how many important ideas would've been independently proposed by others if others had the same access to publication and historical preservation.
There is a very clear heritage of the ideas of those Ancient Greek thinkers which have moved and influence world history. So I'm befuddled how you don't see sufficient evidence, nor what constitutes such sufficiency for genius?
It is a persuasive essay that, no matter the resources, genuine philosophers or geniuses pursue the truth for its very sake. I concur that historically this has been the art of the aristocracy, but so what? Hypothetical or "unrewarded genius" doesn't amount to much in world history. Results do. And such fruit is actually the result of a cohesive organization of a society, ie genius is the goal of civilization proper. Plato and Descartes both had to have their trash picked up by somebody in order for them to impact us today.
> There is a very clear heritage of the ideas of those Ancient Greek thinkers which have moved and influence world history.
Yes, there is. But that is a very different thing from having very clear evidence that those ideas originated uniquely in a specific small set of brains whose owner's names are recorded. "This person's writings have a clear influence on history" is a very different claim from "This person was the very first person to ever think the thoughts that he wrote down."
Original minds do not find satisfaction in being derivative. Searching for truth leads to originality for this very reason. So it is safe to say that Socrates was a novelty in the human race because of his philosophical turn towards examining moral knowledge, which there was no previous recording of. I guess I don’t see the point in questioning it, chiefly because such genius is normally a culmination of rare and successful inter-generational cultural growth, so it really is “one-of-a-kind.”
We know. And Aristotle was certainly a star of his era. But we also know that Aristotle didn't come up with this all from nothing; he was engaging in a number of disputes with other philosophers of the time. You can see this reflected in his work, where he often gives accounts of what his opponents' theories are as well before offering his rebuttal.
In fact, the work of Aristotle is one of the better sources we have for views of philosophers whose writings are largely lost.
The fact that our surviving records all happen to funnel through those guys is not proof that it all originated with those guys. It is highly likely that they were both building on an extensive unrecorded philosophical tradition, and participating in a broader contemporary cultural conversation whose other participants have merely not been lucky enough to have their names recorded by history.