Read more. The Presocratic Philosophers. Presocratic Philosophy. Parmenides and Presocratic Philosophy. Roman Philosophers.
The Military Philosophers. Memoirs of Modern Philosophers. Memoirs of modern philosophers. The World's Great Philosophers. Greek Philosophers as Theologians. Flappers and Philosophers.
Fifty Major Philosophers. Leibniz Routledge Philosophers. Mind and Philosophers. The philosophers of Greece. He gives the Greek with Latin translation, and sometimes running commentary. What is missing compared to later editions of fragments is any systematic collection of testimonies. Moreover, Parmenides' cosmology in the Doxa was in broad outlines borrowed from the Pythagoreans.
He also developed an influential account of Anaxagoras's theory, according to which the homoiomeries or stuffs that Aristotle describes as his elements are really not elemental, but are composed of a set of qualities arranged in certain proportions that determine the character of the stuff.
Tannery appended French translations of the testimonies and fragments of the philosophers to the chapters in which he expounded them.
In , the British scholar John Burnet published what would be the standard textbook in English on the Presocratics for over fifty years in four editions. Early Greek Philosophy contained English translations of the fragments of the major philosophers, together with an explanation of their several systems. Burnet followed Tannery in his account of how Zeno was reacting to the Pythagoreans, and he adopted his interpretation of Anaxagoras's ontology with slight modifications.
The twentieth century offered a major leap forward in sources with Hermann Diels's work Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker He organized the testimonies to give information about first the philosopher's life, then his writings, then his teachings.
He supplied a German translation for the fragments, and in later editions he supplied a critical apparatus for the Greek and Latin text. For the first time, scholars could find all the known material on all the Presocratic thinkers in one place. Diels's sourcebook quickly became the standard work for research on the Presocratics. The one somewhat odd feature of the Vorsokratiker is the fact that he includes works of philosophers working well into the fourth century, including one, Nausiphanes, who was probably younger than Aristotle.
Diels considered the Pythagoreans and atomists of the fourth century still Presocratic, in the dialectical sense of not having been influenced by Socratic concerns; but in any case, he employed a very broad construal of Presocratic philosophy. Diels's work went through four editions in his lifetime, and two posthumous editions under the direction of Walther Kranz, the last appearing in — This work has remained the standard sourcebook, but it is now unfortunately dated, for want of improvements after more than a half century of ongoing scholarship.
Any arrangement of materials will affect how they are studied and thought of. Diels's division of source materials into testimonies and fragments brought with it advantages and disadvantages.
He says it is neither water nor any other of the so-called elements, but a substance different from them which is infinite, from which arise all the heavens and the worlds within them. Penguin Books Gregory Andrew. When people wondered about where they came from, why and how evil came into existence, why there was fortune and misfortune in life, and how they could attain peace and happiness, they found an answer in mythology. Added to basket. For it comes to us through captivation of the soul, and not by design of the intellect.
Set off by themselves, the fragments could be read as major excerpts of the original philosopher, at least for those for whom extensive fragments existed. Moreover, the validity of interpretations embodied in the doxography could be checked against the words of the philosopher. On the other hand, for the most part the fragments appeared out of their original contexts, and clues to their meaning from the contexts might be disregarded. If, however, Diels had not separated the fragments, the words of the fragments would have been surrounded by commentary or extrinsic discussions that could mislead readers or at least distract them from the original statements of the philosopher.
It is always an open question whether the ancient source of a quotation understands the statements he is quoting, and in many cases sources are clearly applying their quotations to problems and situations different from what the original author intended. One major accomplishment of the twentieth century was the emergence of Parmenides as the pivotal figure of philosophical development.
Histories tended to stress common views within schools Milesian, Pythagorean, Eleatic, Pluralist, atomist and perhaps ongoing debates between schools, rather than dialectic development in the Presocratic tradition as a whole. One question was the relative priority of Heraclitus and Parmenides. Hegel saw being as dialectically prior to becoming, hence thought Parmenides must inevitably have preceded Heraclitus.
But Bernays noticed what he thought were echoes of Heraclitean language in Parmenides, and suggested the reverse order. In Harold Cherniss's work to be discussed next Parmenides is clearly the central figure of Presocratic debates; the rules for theorizing change significantly as a result of Parmenides' criticisms of earlier cosmologies.
As already pointed out, we are deeply indebted to Aristotle, Theophrastus, and the Peripatetic school for preserving the views of the Presocratic philosophers. But Aristotle and his followers also interpret the Presocratics, translating their theories into the language of Aristotelian physics and metaphysics, and criticizing them from their own standpoint.
This is not of itself problematic: every generation must discuss previous generations in its own terms and from its own perspective. The problem arises when we take the interpretations of a later generation uncritically. One major attack on Aristotelian interpretation was made by William A. Heidel, the first American scholar to make significant contributions to Presocratic studies. Having studied with both Zeller and Diels in Germany, he developed independent views about the Presocratic tradition. Aristotle saw the Milesians as monists who recognized only one kind of matter, for instance water or air.
Consequently, the only kind of change allowed was alteration or perhaps change of quantity. Heidel argued that this account embodied a misunderstanding of Presocratic physics. The Milesians did not distinguish between substance and properties, viewing what Aristotle would call qualities such as hot and cold as powers existing in their own right and interacting with each other and other things. Another American, Harold Cherniss, subjected Aristotle's criticisms of the Presocratics to his own critical scrutiny in an influential book Aristotle's Criticism p. He found multiple sources of error in Aristotle's treatments of the Presocratics.
He used the fragments of the Presocratics with his own reconstruction to show how Aristotle had misconstrued Presocratic theories. Since Cherniss's book was published, scholars have been cautious of Aristotelian interpretations of the Presocratics; they cannot be used as uncritical data for reconstructing Presocratic theory. There have been some attempts to rehabilitate Aristotle. As scholars have shown, Aristotle often does mark a transition between his exposition of a Presocratic theory and his criticism of it; and his expositions are often less loaded with presuppositions than his criticisms.
Overall, however, Cherniss showed that modern reconstructions of the Presocratics could improve on and correct ancient ones. One groundbreaking study of the Presocratics, by Charles H. Kahn Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology , critically examined the evidence in light of a careful reconstruction of the historical context; this work continues to offer a paradigm of Presocratic scholarship, establishing Anaximander rather than Thales as the originator of the cosmological tradition, and going beyond Aristotle's limited treatment of him.
In the early twentieth century, questions of religion took center stage for several scholars. Cornford, inspired by anthropological studies, traced the emergence of philosophy from religion From Religion to Philosophy. He found two opposing traditions among the Presocratics, a scientific tradition exemplified by the Ionians, and a mystical tradition exemplified by the Italians. The former gave rise to scientific thinking, while the latter stressed religious experience. A Swiss scholar, Willy Theiler, argued in his dissertation Zur Geschichte der teleologischen Naturbetrachtung bis auf Aristoteles , that the argument from design for God's existence could be traced back from Xenophon to Diogenes of Apollonia.
This gave Diogenes, hitherto a minor figure, an important place in the history of ideas. In his Gifford Lectures of The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers , Werner Jaeger studied the theology of the Presocratics, finding a developing sense of the divine that culminated in the teleology of Anaxagoras and Diogenes. At the end of his life, Cornford switched from his dichotomy of an Ionian scientific tradition versus a mystical Italian tradition to a sweeping criticism of the Ionians Principium Sapientiae. The Ionians were not really scientific but were mere purveyors of dogmatic speculations, uninformed by empirical verification.
Vlastos in his review of Principium Sapientiae criticized this view on the grounds that no theories of early Greece were precise enough in their predictions to be corrected by experiment; and the Hippocratics, no less than the Ionians, produced unsubstantiated hypotheses about the world. Cherniss and Vlastos had already pointed out the lack of reliable evidence for these expansive views when Burkert carefully sifted the evidence in a masterful study Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism.
He showed that there was no secure early evidence identifying Pythagoras himself as a philosopher; he was, rather, a religious leader. On the other hand, Burkert distinguished between genuine and spurious fragments of Philolaus so as to rehabilitate this figure of the late fifth century as a genuine philosopher and cosmologist, who was the source of much of Aristotle's account of Pythagoreanism. On the other hand, Philolaus has emerged as a major philosopher with connections to Ionian and Eleatic as well as Pythagorean influences.