The Presocratics

The Birth of Western Philosophy

The birthplace of Greek philosophy was the sea-board of Asia Minor
and the early Greek philosophers were Ionians. The frst philosophers,
who are usually called naturalists (Aristotle calls them students or
inesti!ators of nature" or presocratics
#
, challen!ed the e$planations
o%ered by mytholo!y and instead sou!ht rational and natural
e$planations.
Irwin tells us that &In Aristotle's iew, the naturalists( want to fnd the
nature of thin!s by fndin! their basic matter. In )omer the nature and
constitution of thin!s does not play the primary role in e$plainin! what
happens to them. )e often e$plains eents by some e$ternal diine
a!ency a%ectin! the sea to produce a storm, or a%ectin! human
bodies to produce a pla!ue. In so far as they appeal to the nature and
constitution of thin!s, the naturalists assume that this )omeric iew is
mistaken. In their iew, thin!s seem random, or to re*uire diine
interention, only because we do not know enou!h about the
constituent stu%s and processes (p. +#-++ Classical Thought".,
Aristotle contrasts the physikoi (the inesti!ators of nature", to the
theologoi (the theolo!ians", those who e$plained reality with reference
to the supernatural. In the history of ideas, with the presocratics comes
a 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 fnds
mytholo!ical remnants in the ideas of the presocratics.

In In-Nisga tal-Hsieb -ri!!ieri, *uotin! .onathon /arnes, says that the
ori!inality of the 0resocratics, is characterised by three main
characteristics. (see In-Nisga tal-Hsieb pp. #-1"
#. The naturalists deeloped a new (anti-traditional" way of studyin!
the natural world. They wanted to e$plore the orderly reality which,
accordin! to them, consisted of a series of related events. In Classical
Thought, Irwin refers to the naturalists' &determinist assumption,,
where it is assumed that in the unierse no eent happens by chance,
1
The term 2presocratics' is deried from two words, 2pre', meanin! 2before', and
23ocrates', the name of one of the most important f!ures in Ancient Greek
0hilosophy. 4hile not all presocratic philosophers lied before 3ocrates (some were
contemporaries of 3ocrates", their philosophy can be !rouped to!ether accordin! to a
unifyin! idea5 the study of nature and the !iin! of natural e$planations to natural
phenomena. 4ith 3ocrates philosophy under!oes a 2turn' from the study of nature to
the study of the human bein! as a moral bein!.
1
but always for a natural reason. (Classical Thought p. 66" The
2determinist assumption' contrasts with )omer's idea of a world
controlled only in part by the !ods, with some natural eents occurrin!
for no particular reason.
+. The naturalists also deeloped a new terminolo!y to e$press new
concepts5
i" kosmos which entails an orderly unierse, meanin!ful and planned,
harmonious in its totality. It is e*uialent to harmonia, a word which
primarily applied to music but which was e$tended to coer the whole
of nature.
ii" phusis a word which means 2nature' but which also entails
2re!ulated chan!e and deelopment'. The naturalists assumed that
natural thin!s chan!e and deelop accordin! to natural or 2physical'
laws (in the sense of the Greek word phusis and not as in &physics, as
we know it today".
The naturalists also ar!ued that thin!s could only come into bein! from
pre-e$istin! matter. 4hat constitutes reality is an eternal process of
birth and perishin! and nothin! comes out of (or perishes into"
nothin!.
iii" arche this means both 2to ori!inate' and 2to re!ulate'. The arche is
not 7ust the material origin of the unierse but also the !oernin!
principle of the cosmos (the term was introduced by Ana$imander".
i" logos 2the 8eason of thin!s'9 the reason why thin!s are as they
are 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 the
paths that led them to the particular conclusions they reached (in
contrast with the mytholo!ists' poetic forms of picturin! the world".

The frst three philosophers, Thales, Ana$imander and Ana$imenes
were all from Miletus, Ionia. It is important to immediately point out
that the greatness of the frst philosophers lies not in the
answers they gave but rather in the kind of explanations
sought. Their answers to the *uestions they asked seem primitie to
us, and in fact they are. )oweer, one must appreciate the thinkin!
methods they employed and the fact that they en!a!ed in a critical
thinkin! process9 a process that was innoatie to their world.
Thales of Miletus (is said to have died in 546 BC)
2
In the Metaphysics Aristotle describes Thales as the founder of
natural philosophy. )e was the frst of the three Milesian <atural
0hilosophers. Thales, like many other 0resocratic philosophers, tried to
fnd the primary principle - the principle of all thin!s (the arche" - the
source of all bein!s. Aristotle reports that Thales said that the principle
of all thin!s is water. Water, according to Thales, is that out of
hich everything else ca!e, and that into hich everything
ill return" The Presocratics identi#ed the principle of all
things (arche), ith the $asic stu% of all things (stoicheion)"
Therefore water, for Thales, is not simply the source of all bein!s, but
also the basic constituent of reality.
The conception of a basic stu% is necessary to e$plain natural chan!e.
Thin!s can only chan!e into somethin! else if and only if they share a
common element. 4e can say that Thales introduced the pro7ect of
reductionism. &8eductionism is a method of e$planation that takes an
ob7ect that confronts us on the surface as bein! one kind of thin! and
shows that the ob7ect can be reduced to more basic kind of thin! at a
deeper but less obious leel of analysis. This pro7ect is usually seen as
a ma7or function of modern science.,

;et us assume that an ob7ect = chan!ed into an ob7ect >. If we admit
the e$istence of a common element then we can e$plain chan!e by
recourse to reductionism ? at the surface leel = is chan!in! into >, but
at a more deeper leel, both = and > are composed of the same
element. If on the other hand, = and > hae no common element, then
we must accept that in the process of chan!e = becomes nothin! and
> comes out of nothin!. This, howeer, contradicts one of the Greeks
ontolo!ical a$ioms ? out of nothing co!es nothing.
If eerythin! is fundamentally the same, then the comple$ can be
e$plained with reference to the simple, since at the fundamental leel
of analysis eerythin! will follow the same laws. Thales (and
Ana$imenes, the third of the Milesian philosophers", used the
conceptual tool of analo!y. &nalogy is a conceptual tool here$y
to di%erent o$'ects or events are li(ened, in order to e)plain
the characteristics or $ehaviour of one $y reference to the
characteristics or $ehaviour of the other" -or e$ample, Thales
thou!ht that the world is a @oatin! disc on water, and he e$plained
earth*uakes by comparin! the earth (the @oatin! disc" to a @oatin!
wood.
&na)i!ander of Miletus (c" 6*+ BC , 54+ BC)
3
Ana$imander is the second natural philosopher from Miletus. )e was
youn!er contemporary of Thales. ;ike Thales, he maintained that there
must 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 fre",
then all other elements would hae been absorbed by it. Aerythin!
would hae been transformed into water. Therefore the pri!ary
principle !ust $e so!ething hich goes $eyond any opposites"
It is more primitie than the opposites, an indeter!inate so!ething
(the apeiron the unli!ited), out of which all opposites come and
into which all pass away.
4hat does Ana$imander mean when sayin! that the arche is the
unbounded or unlimitedB 4e de not hae a clear answer to this, and
the interpretation of this claim puCCled een ancient thinkers. A
possible interpretation of this is that Ana$imander is sayin! that this
primary element, which is of a material nature, is spatially orDand
temporarily without limits.
&na)i!enes of Miletus (is said to have died around 5-. BC)
Ana$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$imander
and proposed a new one. Ana$imenes continued the pro7ect of
reductionism, where he said that any *ualitatie di%erence is
ultimately a *uantitatie di%erence. This means that two di%erent
substances are ultimately the same substance with di%erent de!ree of
density (of air in Ana$imenes case". Ana$imenes speaks of rarefaction
(decrease in density" and condensation (increase in density" as the
processes of chan!e.
/enophanes (lived so!eti!e $eteen 5.+ BC , 4.+ BC)
!If oxen and horses or lions had hands and could paint with
their hands and produce works of art as "en do horses would
paint the for"s of the gods like horses and oxen like oxen
and "ake their bodies in the i"age of their several kinds#
=enophanes was reputed to be the founder of the Aleatic school.
)oweer there is no real eidence that he eer went to Alea, in
3outhern Italy.
=enophanes belieed that the basic stu% was earth. Aerythin! is
composed and deried from earth. )is ma7or contribution to
4
philosophy, howeer, is his criticism of the anthropomorphic !ods (the
portrayin! of !ods as hain! human attributes". EriticiCin! the
anthropomorphic !ods he said that &If o$en and horses or lions had
hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as
men 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 %hilosophy p. FG",.
Accordin! to -ri!!ieri's In-Nisga tal-Hsieb =enophanes belieed that
there is only one God (this would *ualify =enophanes as a monotheist,
i.e. admittin! the e$istence of only one God" who is eternal, neither
fnite nor infnite, neither chan!in! nor unchan!in!. )e says that we
cannot know the whole truth about this God. =enophanes admits two
basic 2properties' to his almost unknowable God5 e$istence (that God
e$ists" and thou!ht.
Eopleston o%ers a di%erent interpretation from the one o%ered by
-ri!!ieri. Huotin! Aristotle's Metaphysics he says that =enophanes
&referrin! to the whole world, said the Ine was !od., This would mean
that =enophanes belieed not that there is one God, but that there
e$ists one substance, the Ine, which he calls !od (diine". It would
thereby be more appropriate to call =enophanes a monist (beliein!
that there is only one kind of self-subsistent, real thin!, i.e. only one
substance e$ists" rather than a monotheist. Eopleston o%ers two
ar!uments in support of this interpretation. The school which
=enophanes is reputed to hae founded, the Aleatic school, was a
monistic school (its members adhered to the idea that only one
substance e$ists". Also, monotheism was an unfamiliar notion with the
Greek thou!ht of that time, and such a belief would hae been
somethin! e$ceptional. )oweer, there is not enou!h eidence to say
which interpretation should preail. 4ith re!ards to Eopleston's second
ar!ument, one can say that the fact that monotheism was an
unfamiliar idea in Ancient Greek thou!ht does not entail that no Greek
accepted such a position.
0eraclitus (1ourished around 5+425+* BC)
!Men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself& It
is an attune"ent of opposite tensions like that of the bow and
the lyre&#
4hile Ana$imander ar!ued that world was !enerated out of the
boundless, )eraclitus counters that the world was not created but
e$isted since eer.
5
)eraclitus is most known for the sayin! attributed to him, thou!h
apparently not his, that &All thin!s are in a state of @u$, (Eopleston p.
6J". )e is also recorded to hae said that &>ou cannot step twice into
the same rier, for fresh waters are eer @owin! in upon you., These
two *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 the
e$istence of a persistent stuf in the midst of all chan!e, but ar!ues
instead that there is a persistin! process of chan!e. )e does posit fre
as basic to all thin!s, probably because fre is a continuous chan!in!
2process'. )oweer fre is not always the same as stu% (because what
is bein! burned today is not the same as what has been burned
yesterday" but is the same as process.
The kernel of )eraclitus' thou!ht is probably his 24ord', the special
messa!e he has for mankind ? unity in diversity, and di%erence in
unity. Ana$imander re!arded the tension between opposites as a
disorderly actiity and as a blot to the IneDreality. )eraclitus ar!ued
that the opposites are essential to the bein! of the IneDreality. The
IneDreality cannot e$ist without opposites. )e likens the tension of the
opposites and their centrality in the constitution of the IneDreality with
the tension of the opposite ends of the bow and lyre. -or the lyre to
produce a pleasant sound the chords must be in tension between the
two ends.
Ehan!e, accordin! to )eraclitus, is characteriCed by two opposin!
paths9 the downward path and the upward path. In the downward path
fre turns into air, air into water and water into earth. In the upward
path, earth is turned into water, water into air and air into fre. /oth
paths are needed for reality to e$ist. If one of these processes ceases,
reality ceases to be too.
4hilst eerythin! is in a constant state of @u$, there is somethin!
which remains constant. This is the :niersal 8easonD;aw, or ;o!os.
The ;o!os balances the world throu!h opposites. -or eery chan!e that
occurs there is an opposite chan!e which maintains the balance. Man's
reason is 7ust an instance in the :niersal ;aw, a canalisation of it. 4e
should not be rebellious to fate, since eerythin! happens as part of
the necessary process of this all-orderin! and all-comprehensie ;o!os.
)eraclitus e*uates the :niersal 8eason (;o!os" with God. The
)eraclitean conception of God is di%erent from the .udeo-Ehristian
conception of God. 4hile for the Ehristians God is personal, in the
sense that It communicates with human bein!s, cares for human
6
bein!s etc., the )eraclitean conception of God is a pantheistic one.
God is an immanent orderin! principle of all thin!s.
The Pythagorean 3ociety (founded in the second half of the
si)th century)
-ounded by 0ytha!oras, the 0ytha!orean society was a reli!ious
community. The reli!ious and ascetic character of the school is what
distin!uishes it from other schools. The school was founded in Eroton
(3outh Italy" in the second half of the si$th century /E. The ori!ins of
the school as well as the life of its founder (who was an Ionian" are
shrouded in obscurity. They had an important in@uence on 0lato.
The 0ytha!oreans were deelopin! a new science, mathematics. They
were struck by the importance of numbers in the world. All thin!s are
numerable and many thin!s can be e$pressed numerically. 4hat
particularly struck them was howeer the discoery that musical
interals depend on numbers.
In his Metaphysics Aristotle says &since they saw that the attributes
and the ratios of the musical scales were e$pressible in numbers9 since
then all other thin!s seemed in their whole nature to be modelled after
numbers, and numbers seemed to be the frst thin!s in the whole of
nature, 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!s
are numbers.
4hat did the 0ytha!oreans mean when they said that all thin!s are
numbersB Eopleston says that it is clear that the 0ytha!oreans
re!arded that all thin!s are numbers spatially. In other words one
would 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 are
number they meant that all thin!s can be represented usin! numbers,
and not an identifcation of numbers with !eometrical f!ures.
7