Pre-Socratic Philosophy

Dogłębna wiwisekcja zdań ocalałych z arcydzieła Heraklita oraz korespondujących z nimi świadectw ułatwia sformułowanie tezy, że „dobro” i „prawda” oraz ich konsekwentnie odróżniane, z całą pewnością nieutożsamiane ze sobą przeciwieństwa, są centralnymi pojęciami heraklitejskiej (1) „etyki” (zob. DK B: 78, 119; DL, IX,12,8) – na poziomie zarówno (1a) prymarnym, tj. prywatnym, indywidualnym, jak i (1b) sekundarnym, tj. wspólnotowym, politycznym – oraz na wskroś od niej uzależnionej (2) „epistemologii”.

The Presocratic philosophers, writing in Greece in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE, invented new ways of thinking about human life, the natural world, and the structures of reality. They also developed novel ways of using language to express their thought. In this book, Victoria Wohl examines these twin innovations and the productive relation between them in the work of five figures: Parmenides, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus. Bringing these thinkers into conversation with modern critical theorists on questions of shared (...) concern, Wohl argues for the poetic sophistication of their work and the inextricable convergence of their aesthetic form and philosophical content. In addition to offering original readings of these fascinating figures and robust strategies for interpreting their fragmentary, rebarbative texts, this book invites readers to communicate across entrenched divisions between literature and philosophy and between antiquity and modernity. (shrink)

Among the reconstructions of the quasi-legendary figure of Pherecydes, one point of the doxography concerning possible astronomical activities of the Wise of Syros is quickly dismissed by modern commentators. The story is based on two testimonies reported by Diogenes Laertius: one attributes to Pherecydes the invention of an instrument for observing the solstices (the “heliotrope”); the other recalls the opinion of Andron of Ephesus, who distinguished between two Pherecydes of Syros: the “Wise” and the “astronomer”. The first seems to stem (...) from a misunderstanding of Homeric poetry ; the second, if derived from the former, would have no greater value. However, the various understandings of the testimonies of Diogenes Laertius on Andron and, immediately after him, on Eratosthenes, leave open the possibility that the general issue of Pherecydes’ astronomy implied more than a simple misunderstanding of a few Homeric verses (without excluding it). It could rather depend on: (a) the confusion over the identity of Pherecyde(s) that seems to have prevailed as early as the 4th century B.C.; (b) the philosophical character that earlier doxographers were willing to attribute to his work. These neglected testimonies then became a remarkable source of information on the first reception of Pherecydes of Syros in the 4th century B.C., and on the ways in which this thinker was integrated in the history of philosophy. (shrink)

Zeno's extraordinary and disturbing paradoxes, the atomic theories of Democritus that so strikingly anticipate contemporary physics, the enigmatic and haunting epigrams of Heraclitus - these are just some of the riches to be found in this collection of writings of the early Greek philosophers. Jonathan Barnes's masterly Introduction shows how the most skilled detective work is often needed to reconstruct the ideas of these thinkers from the surviving fragments of their work. But the effort is always worth while. In forging (...) the first truly scientific vocabulary and offering rational arguments for their views, the pre-Socratics were doing something new and profoundly important; they also posed the questions that have remained at the centre of philosophy to this day. (shrink)

Dada la necesidad de formalizar un espacio de reflexión y discusión sobre los problemas y autores correspondientes al período de la antigüedad grecorromana, desde la Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira ingeniaron y materializaron el desarrollo de un foro académico. Con miras a la difusión y acrecentamiento de los estudios sobre el pensamiento grecolatino, se piensa para la región cafetera colombiana un avance importante en cuanto a la propuesta de proyectos y de actividades de talante dialógico a ejemplo de los países latinoamericanos (...) y europeos en que esos estudios poseen mayor alcance. De aquí que, para efectos del fortalecimiento de lo clásico en la academia colombiana, se convoca bianualmente al nominado Foro Internacional de Filosofía Antigua en la ciudad de Pereira. (shrink)

The question of Who am I?” is the end of philosophy. The famous ancient Greek philosopher Socrates raised three ultimate questions in philosophy when he looked up at the starry sky: “Who am I?” “Where do I come from?” “Where am I going？”. For thousands of years, humans have explored and answered questions about them, including various disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, biology, and neurology etc., but none of them have been recognized. This article starts with the cosmology and worldview (...) of “Who am I?” and elaborates on the origin of “Who am I?” and the concept of “center”. (shrink)

Special volume of "Thaumàzein - Rivista di Filosofia" dedicated to the theme of Socratic Eudaimonia and care for others. It is a multilingual volume comprising twenty papers divided into six sections with an introduction by Linda Napolitano. Edited by Santiago Chame, Donald Morrison, and Linda Napolitano. -/- Despite the appearances given by certain texts, the moral psychology of Socrates needs not imply selfishness. On the contrary, a close look at passages in Plato and Xenophon (see Plato, Meno 77-78; Protagoras 358; (...) Gorgias 466-468; Euthydemus 278; Lysis 219; Xenophon, Memorabilia III 9, 4-5) suggests that the “egoist”’s welfare depends upon the welfare of others (i.e. family, friends or the whole city). Since the welfare of his family, friends and city is part of his own eudaimonìa, the “egoist” (phìlautos) has a direct and intrinsic motive to promote the welfare of these others. -/- This multilingual issue explores the role that other peoples’ welfare plays in Socratic ethics. Special attention is paid to test-cases in which the principle that moral action is always good only for the agent seems to have no validity. I.e., under which circumstances is the self-sacrifice for the sake of others (such as the soldier’s self-sacrifice on the battlefield) good for the agent (as in Alcibiades I 115a-116d)? Essays deal with contradictions or tensions of this sort, and relate them to more general views on eudaimonìa held within Socratic literature. Comparison between different Socratic authors is used as a means to identify the distinctive features of Socratic eudaimonìa if compared to other Greek theories of happiness, such as the Aristotelian theory of philautìa (NE IX, 1166a-1166b; 1168a-1169b). (shrink)

t. 1. Historia tēs philosophias, Hellas.

Pitagora maestro di scuola (P.Br.Libr. Add. Ms. 37516.1) -- Il carteggio fra Dario ed Eraclito (Diog. Laert. 9.13-14) -- Il sapiente e le città. Parmenide e una congettura involontaria su B 1.3 -- Empedocle e il tempo inestinguibile (B 16 DK) -- Empedocle e la lanterna (B 84.3 DK) -- Ippodamo de Mileto filosofo e architetto -- Tre note su Diogene di Apollonia (A 19.39; A 19.44-45; B 1 DK) -- Diogene di Sinope e le particelle vaporizzate (Diog. Laert. 6.73=SSR (...) B V 132). (shrink)

This note argues that Ps.-Lyc. 874-6 alludes to Pind. Pyth. 6.7-14 and may, in turn, be pertinent as one of the intertexts of Hor. Carm. 3.30.1-5.

What is the role of Hesiod's poetry in the beginnings of Greek philosophy? This book explores the question by going beyond the traditional responses that stress either continuities or discontinuities between myth and philosophy. Instead, this volume attempts a reflexive or response-oriented approach, that highlights the active re-appropriation and renewal of Hesiodic thought by the Presocratic philosophers. Its fifteen contributions offer large scale comparisons, historiographical considerations, thematic and generic approaches, and detailed case studies.

The dramatic characters in the tragedies of Aeschylus tend to assert that their actions are in accordance with the law and prompted by necessity. Because these statements are often given to legitimise problematic actions, this paper argues that the rhetorical devices can convey the intentions and dispositions of the tragic heroes. Therefore, the „Septem“, the „Suppliants“ and the „Oresteia“ are analysed to show how Aeschylus makes use of rhetorical devices in order to enable the recipient to reach a fuller understanding (...) of the tragic heroes and the tragedies. (shrink)

The knots of images in Aeschylus’ Septem with their exuberant and powerful vocabulary give the play the aura that prompted Gorgias and Aristophanes to proclaim it “full of Ares”. The ferocity of the ancient siege is brought to life in the destruction of the city the chorus imagines and in the duels at the seven gates that achieve epic proportions through the dueling speeches of Eteocles and his scout. The play’s transparent dependence on language for its emotive effect readily invites (...) close examination. Aeschylus’ Septem abounds with contemporary cosmological and mathematical ideas and images. The poet uses them consistently throughout the play, I suggest, to make of Thebes a seven-sided, shield-shaped cosmos, ruled over by the seven-month lord of sevens (heptamagetes), Apollo, and the completion of whose circumference seals the unified fate of Polynices and Eteocles. (shrink)

The debate between the Better and the Worse Argument, between the old and the new education, in Aristophanes’ Clouds, is a scene full of caustic humour and exquisite irony. In this paper we will try to provide a detailed analysis of the linguistic features that characterize these two characters, in order to confront how two clearly opposite linguistic registers are outlined, in line with their confrontation of ideas. In general terms, the Better Argument exhibits a stronger conversational tone than his (...) adversary, a greater inclination to the use of asyndeton in his syntax, more vulgar and abusive terms, a virtual absence of both poetic and paratragic words and certain linguistic innovations and variants of a lesser literary quality. In contrast, the Worse Argument does just the opposite. (shrink)

Recent scholarship has shown that the Eumenides of Aeschylus, far from presenting a complete and coherent picture of the well-ordered polis, in fact offers something quite different, namely, a complex set of questions, concerns and conundrums regarding the very nature of political society. But I suggest that the literature has not yet provided a fully satisfying account of the ways in which those questions are underwritten by the specifically literary practice of Aeschylus as it develops the play’s larger theoretical – (...) especially moral – implications. I argue that the Eumenides can fruitfully be read as a sustained exercise in the subversion of expectations that unsettles its audience and thereby opens up a discursive and aesthetic space for the development of a distinctive political problematic; and further, that this problematic involves a challenging series of meditations on what today would be called political ethics, broadly conceived. (shrink)

Advocates of the questioning of the dominant anthropocentric perspective of the world have been increasingly strongly presenting ethical demands for a new solution of the relationship between humans and other beings, saying that adherence to the Western philosophical and theological traditions has caused the current environmental, and not just environmental, crisis. The attempts are being made to establish a new relationship by relativizing the differences between man and the non-human living beings, often by attributing specifically human traits and categories, such (...) as dignity, moral status and rights to non-human living beings. The author explores antecedents of the standpoints that deviate from the mainstream Western philosophy, in terms of non-anthropocentric extension of ethics, and finds them in the fragments of first physicists, which emphasize kinship of all varieties of life. Pythagoras, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Democritus, in this context, considered certain animals and plants as sacred, i.e. they believed that they are, in a sense, responsible for what they do and that they apart from being able to be driven by a natural desire, being able to breathe, feel, be sad and happy, also have a soul, power of discernment, awareness, the ability to think, understanding and mind. Finally, the author believes that solutions or mitigation of the mentioned crisis are not in the simple Aesopeian levelling of animals and plants "upwards", but in an adequate paideutic approach which in humans will develop an inherent ethical model of accepting non-human living beings as creatures who deserve moral and decent treatment and respect. (shrink)

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola decided to study all the ancient and medieval schools of philosophy, including the Pre-Socratics, in order to broaden his scope. Pico showed interest in ancient monists. He commented that only Xenophanes’ One is the One simply, while Parmenides’ One is not the absolute One, but the oneness of Being. Melissus’ One is in extreme correspondence to that of Xenophanes. As for Xenophanes, Pico seems to have fallen victim of ancient sources, who referred to Xenophanes and Parmenides (...) as members of the Eleatic “tribe”. In the case of Parmenides Pico draws mainly on the Platonic dialogues Parmenides and Sophist and not on intermediaries such as the Neoplatonists and other commentators. Despite of Pico’s knowledge of Empedocles’ philosophy, it is worth noticing that Pico was also strongly influenced by the medieval kabbalistic literature and the pseudo Empedocles. While Neoplatonists, such as Proclus, commented Empedocles and interpreted him according to the Neoplatonic spectrum, Pico’s appreciation of the philosophy of Empedocles was mediated through Arab and Jewish mysticism. Pico counted among his sources the Pre-Socratics, but the way he read them was not always direct and consistent. He intentionally chose to interpret them through the spectrum of intermediaries such as the ancient Commentators, the Neoplatonists, the Arabs and Jews mystics. (shrink)

Why did Greek philosophy begin in the sixth century BCE? Why did Indian philosophy begin at about the same time? Why did the earliest philosophy take the form that it did? Why was this form so similar in Greece and India? And how do we explain the differences between them? These questions can only be answered by locating the philosophical intellect within its entire societal context, ignoring neither ritual nor economy. The cities of Greece and northern India were in this (...) period distinctive also by virtue of being pervasively monetised. The metaphysics of both cultures is marked by the projection and the introjection of the abstract, all-pervasive, quasi-omnipotent, impersonal substance embodied in money. And in both cultures this development accompanied the interiorisation of the cosmic rite of passage. (shrink)

This volume appears in the Cambridge series of companions to major philosophers but with this difference: it focuses not on a single philosopher but on those Greek philosophers often called Presocratics. Chapters are divided between studies of individual thinkers and movements and studies of topics to which they collectively contributed.

Early Greek Ethics is the first volume devoted to philosophical ethics in its "formative" period. It explores contributions from the Presocratics, figures of the early Pythagorean tradition, sophists, and anonymous texts, as well as topics influential to ethical philosophical thought such as Greek medicine, music, friendship, and justice.

In _Isonomia and the Origins of Philosophy_—published originally in Japanese and now available in four languages—Kojin Karatani questions the idealization of ancient Athens as the source of philosophy and democracy by placing the origins instead in Ionia, a set of Greek colonies located in present-day Turkey. Contrasting Athenian democracy with Ionian isonomia—a system based on non-rule and a lack of social divisions whereby equality is realized through the freedom to immigrate—Karatani shows how early Greek thinkers from Heraclitus to Pythagoras were (...) inseparably linked to the isonomia of their Ionian origins, not democracy. He finds in isonomia a model for how an egalitarian society not driven by class antagonism might be put into practice, and resituates Socrates's work and that of his intellectual heirs as the last philosophical attempts to practice isonomia's utopic potentials. Karatani subtly interrogates the democratic commitments of Western philosophy from within and argues that the key to transcending their contradictions lies not in Athenian democracy, with its echoes of imperialism, slavery, and exclusion, but in the openness of isonomia. (shrink)