presocratics - part 1

8/11/2019 Presocratics - Part 1

1/7

The Presocratics

The Birth of Western Philosophy

The birthplace of Greek philosophy was the sea-board of Asia Minorand the early Greek philosophers were Ionians. The rst philosophers,who are usually called naturalists (Aristotle calls them students orinesti!ators of nature" or presocratics#, challen!ed the e$planationso%ered by mytholo!y and instead sou!ht rational and naturale$planations.

Irwin tells us that &In Aristotle's iew, the naturalists want to nd thenature of thin!s by ndin! their basic matter. In )omer the nature andconstitution of thin!s does not play the primary role in e$plainin! whathappens to them. )e often e$plains eents by some e$ternal diine

a!ency a%ectin! the sea to produce a storm, or a%ectin! humanbodies to produce a pla!ue. In so far as they appeal to the nature andconstitution of thin!s, the naturalists assume that this )omeric iew ismistaken. In their iew, thin!s seem random, or to re*uire diineinterention, only because we do not know enou!h about theconstituent stu%s and processes (p. +#-++ Classical Thought".

Aristotle contrasts the physikoi (the inesti!ators of nature", to thetheologoi(the theolo!ians", those who e$plained reality with referenceto the supernatural. In the history of ideas, with the presocratics comesa new be!innin!. )oweer one has to keep in mind that most chan!es

occur !radually, and therefore it is no surprise that one still ndsmytholo!ical remnants in the ideas of the presocratics.

In In-Nisga tal-Hsiebri!!ieri, *uotin! onathon /arnes, says that theori!inality of the 0resocratics, is characterised by three maincharacteristics. (see In-Nisga tal-Hsiebpp. #-1"

#. The naturalists deeloped a new (anti-traditional" way of studyin!the natural world. They wanted to e$plore the orderly reality which,accordin! to them, consisted of a series of related events. In ClassicalThought, Irwin refers to the naturalists' &determinist assumption,where it is assumed that in the unierse no eent happens by chance,

1The term 2presocratics' is deried from two words, 2pre', meanin! 2before', and23ocrates', the name of one of the most important !ures in Ancient Greek0hilosophy. 4hile not all presocratic philosophers lied before 3ocrates (some werecontemporaries of 3ocrates", their philosophy can be !rouped to!ether accordin! to aunifyin! idea5 the study of nature and the !iin! of natural e$planations to naturalphenomena. 4ith 3ocrates philosophy under!oes a 2turn' from the study of nature tothe study of the human bein! as a moral bein!.

1


2/7

but always for a natural reason. (Classical Thought p. 66" The2determinist assumption' contrasts with )omer's idea of a worldcontrolled only in partby the !ods, with some natural eents occurrin!for no particular reason.

+. The naturalists also deeloped a new terminolo!y to e$press newconcepts5

i"kosmoswhich entails an orderly unierse, meanin!ful and planned,harmonious in its totality. It is e*uialent to harmonia, a word whichprimarily applied to music but which was e$tended to coer the wholeof nature.ii" phusis a word which means 2nature' but which also entails2re!ulated chan!e and deelopment'. The naturalists assumed thatnatural thin!s chan!e and deelop accordin! to natural or 2physical'laws (in the sense of the Greek wordphusisand not as in &physics as

we know it today".The naturalists also ar!ued that thin!s could only come into bein! frompre-e$istin! matter. 4hat constitutes reality is an eternal process ofbirth and perishin! and nothin! comes out of (or perishes into"nothin!.iii" archethis means both 2to ori!inate' and 2to re!ulate'. The archeisnot 7ust the material origin of the unierse but also the !oernin!principle of the cosmos (the term was introduced by Ana$imander".i" logos2the 8eason of thin!s'9 the reason why thin!s are as theyare and why they chan!e as they do. The :niersal ;o!os, or 8eason,is the meanin! behind thin!s and is !rasped by the mind of those who

(in )eraclitus's words" &listen to it. )uman reason, which partakes in:niersal 8eason, is sometimes referred to as 2lo!os'.

6. Most naturalists employed ar!umentatie methods to illustrate thepaths that led them to the particular conclusions they reached (incontrast with the mytholo!ists' poetic forms of picturin! the world".

The rst three philosophers, Thales, Ana$imander and Ana$imeneswere all from Miletus, Ionia. It is important to immediately point outthat the greatness of the rst philosophers lies not in theanswers they gave but rather in the kind of explanations

sought. Their answers to the *uestions they asked seem primitie tous, and in fact they are. )oweer, one must appreciate the thinkin!methods they employed and the fact that they en!a!ed in a criticalthinkin! process9 a process that was innoatie to their world.

Thales of Miletus (is said to have died in 546 BC)

2


3/7

In the Metaphysics Aristotle describes Thales as the founder ofnatural philosophy. )e was the rst of the three Milesian


4/7

Ana$imander is the second natural philosopher from Miletus. )e wasyoun!er contemporary of Thales. ;ike Thales, he maintained that theremust be a primary principle, a basic stu%, which is found in all thin!s.)oweer, unlike Thales, he did not think that this primary stu% is water.)e ar!ued that if the primary principle and primary stu% was one of

the opposites (e.!. water, which is conceied to be an opposite of re",then all other elements would hae been absorbed by it. erythin!would hae been transformed into water. Therefore the pri!aryprinciple !ust $e so!ething hich goes $eyond any opposites"It is more primitie than the opposites, an indeter!inate so!ething(the apeiron the unli!ited), out of which all opposites come andinto which all pass away.

4hat does Ana$imander mean when sayin! that the arche is theunbounded or unlimitedB 4e de not hae a clear answer to this, andthe interpretation of this claim puCCled een ancient thinkers. A

possible interpretation of this is that Ana$imander is sayin! that thisprimary element, which is of a material nature, is spatially orDandtemporarily without limits.&nai!enes of Miletus (is said to have died around 5-. BC)

Ana$imenes was the third and last of the known Milesian philosophers.)e is most famous for hain! said that the principle of all thin!s is air.)e therefore refuted the answers !ien by Thales and Ana$imanderand proposed a new one. Ana$imenes continued the pro7ect ofreductionism, where he said that any *ualitatie di%erence isultimately a *uantitatie di%erence. This means that two di%erent

substances are ultimately the same substance with di%erent de!ree ofdensity (of air in Ana$imenes case". Ana$imenes speaks of rarefaction(decrease in density" and condensation (increase in density" as theprocesses of chan!e.

/enophanes (lived so!eti!e $eteen 5.+ BC 4.+ BC)

!If oxen and horses or lions had hands and could paint withtheir hands and produce works of art as "en do horses would

paint the for"s of the gods like horses and oxen like oxen

and "ake their bodies in the i"age of their several kinds#

=enophanes was reputed to be the founder of the leatic school.)oweer there is no real eidence that he eer went to lea, in3outhern Italy.

=enophanes belieed that the basic stu% was earth. erythin! iscomposed and deried from earth. )is ma7or contribution to

4


5/7

philosophy, howeer, is his criticism of the anthropomorphic !ods (theportrayin! of !ods as hain! human attributes". EriticiCin! theanthropomorphic !ods he said that &If o$en and horses or lions hadhands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art asmen do, horses would paint the forms of the !ods like horses, and o$en

like o$en, and make their bodies in the ima!e of their seeral kinds(Eopleston,$ History of %hilosophyp. F".

Accordin! to ri!!ieri's In-Nisga tal-Hsieb=enophanes belieed thatthere is only one God (this would *ualify =enophanes as a monotheist,i.e. admittin! the e$istence of only one God" who is eternal, neithernite nor innite, neither chan!in! nor unchan!in!. )e says that wecannot know the whole truth about this God. =enophanes admits twobasic 2properties' to his almost unknowable God5 e$istence (that Gode$ists" and thou!ht.

Eopleston o%ers a di%erent interpretation from the one o%ered byri!!ieri. Huotin! Aristotle's Metaphysics he says that =enophanes&referrin! to the whole world, said the ne was !od. This would meanthat =enophanes belieed not that there is one God, but that theree$ists one substance, the ne, which he calls !od (diine". It wouldthereby be more appropriate to call =enophanes a monist (beliein!that there is only one kind of self-subsistent, real thin!, i.e. only onesubstance e$ists" rather than a monotheist. Eopleston o%ers twoar!uments in support of this interpretation. The school which=enophanes is reputed to hae founded, the leatic school, was amonistic school (its members adhered to the idea that only one

substance e$ists". Also, monotheism was an unfamiliar notion with theGreek thou!ht of that time, and such a belief would hae beensomethin! e$ceptional. )oweer, there is not enou!h eidence to saywhich interpretation should preail. 4ith re!ards to Eopleston's secondar!ument, one can say that the fact that monotheism was anunfamiliar idea in Ancient Greek thou!ht does not entail that no Greekaccepted such a position.

0eraclitus (1ourished around 5+425+* BC)

!Men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself& Itis an attune"ent of opposite tensions like that of the bow and

the lyre

4hile Ana$imander ar!ued that world was !enerated out of theboundless, )eraclitus counters that the world was not created bute$isted since eer.

5


6/7

)eraclitus is most known for the sayin! attributed to him, thou!happarently not his, that &All thin!s are in a state of @u$ (Eopleston p.6J". )e is also recorded to hae said that &>ou cannot step twice intothe same rier, for fresh waters are eer @owin! in upon you. Thesetwo *uotes point to one of )eraclitus' most important themes ? reality

is continuously chan!in!. In )eraclitus the *uestions 2what is chan!eB'and 2what is realityB' become one, as change is reality.

:nlike the Milesian philosophers )eraclitus does not admit thee$istence of a persistent stu in the midst of all chan!e, but ar!uesinstead that there is a persistin!processof chan!e. )e does posit reas basic to all thin!s, probably because re is a continuous chan!in!2process'. )oweer re is not always the same as stu% (because whatis bein! burned today is not the same as what has been burnedyesterday" but is the same as process.

The kernel of )eraclitus' thou!ht is probably his 24ord', the specialmessa!e he has for mankind ? unity in diversity, and di%erence inunity. Ana$imander re!arded the tension between opposites as adisorderly actiity and as a blot to the neDreality. )eraclitus ar!uedthat the opposites are essential to the bein! of the neDreality. TheneDreality cannot e$ist without opposites. )e likens the tension of theopposites and their centrality in the constitution of the neDreality withthe tension of the opposite ends of the bow and lyre. or the lyre toproduce a pleasant sound the chords must be in tension between thetwo ends.

Ehan!e, accordin! to )eraclitus, is characteriCed by two opposin!paths9 the downward path and the upward path. In the downward pathre turns into air, air into water and water into earth. In the upwardpath, earth is turned into water, water into air and air into re. /othpaths are needed for reality to e$ist. If one of these processes ceases,reality ceases to be too.4hilst eerythin! is in a constant state of @u$, there is somethin!which remains constant. This is the :niersal 8easonD;aw, or ;o!os.The ;o!os balances the world throu!h opposites. or eery chan!e thatoccurs there is an opposite chan!e which maintains the balance. Man'sreason is 7ust an instance in the :niersal ;aw, a canalisation of it. 4e

should not be rebellious to fate, since eerythin! happens as part ofthe necessary process of this all-orderin! and all-comprehensie ;o!os.

)eraclitus e*uates the :niersal 8eason (;o!os" with God. The)eraclitean conception of God is di%erent from the udeo-Ehristianconception of God. 4hile for the Ehristians God is personal, in thesense that It communicates with human bein!s, cares for human

6


7/7

bein!s etc., the )eraclitean conception of God is a pantheistic one.God is an immanent orderin! principle of all thin!s.

The Pythagorean 3ociety (founded in the second half of the

sith century)

ounded by 0ytha!oras, the 0ytha!orean society was a reli!iouscommunity. The reli!ious and ascetic character of the school is whatdistin!uishes it from other schools. The school was founded in Eroton(3outh Italy" in the second half of the si$th century /E. The ori!ins ofthe school as well as the life of its founder (who was an Ionian" areshrouded in obscurity. They had an important in@uence on 0lato.

The 0ytha!oreans were deelopin! a new science, mathematics. Theywere struck by the importance of numbers in the world. All thin!s are

numerable and many thin!s can be e$pressed numerically. 4hatparticularly struck them was howeer the discoery that musicalinterals depend on numbers.

In his MetaphysicsAristotle says &since they saw that the attributesand the ratios of the musical scales were e$pressible in numbers9 sincethen all other thin!s seemed in their whole nature to be modelled afternumbers, and numbers seemed to be the rst thin!s in the whole ofnature, and the whole heaen to be a musical scale and a number (p.66 Eopleston". Their oer-enthusiasm led them to posit that all thin!sare numbers.

4hat did the 0ytha!oreans mean when they said that all thin!s arenumbersB Eopleston says that it is clear that the 0ytha!oreansre!arded that all thin!s are numbers spatially. In other words onewould be the point, two the line, three the surface and four the solid.)oweer there is the possibility that when they said that all thin!s arenumber they meant that all thin!s can be represented usin! numbers,and not an identication of numbers with !eometrical !ures.

7

presocratics - part 1

Documents