Explaining the Cosmos is a major reinterpretation of Greek scientific thought before Socrates. Focusing on the scientific tradition of philosophy, Daniel Graham argues that Presocratic philosophy is not a mere patchwork of different schools and styles of thought. Rather, there is a discernible and unified Ionian tradition that dominates Presocratic debates. Graham rejects the common interpretation of the early Ionians as "material monists" and also the view of the later Ionians as desperately trying to save scientific (...) class='Hi'>philosophy from Parmenides' criticisms. In Graham's view, Parmenides plays a constructive role in shaping the scientific debates of the fifth century BC. Accordingly, the history of Presocratic philosophy can be seen not as a series of dialectical failures, but rather as a series of theoretical advances that led to empirical discoveries. Indeed, the Ionian tradition can be seen as the origin of the scientific conception of the world that we still hold today. (shrink)

We can trace to archaic Greek times detailed accounts of the origins of the cosmos. Anaximander and Hesiod provide different kinds of narrative, but both assume that the cosmos as we find it now was not the way it was at the beginning, and seek to explain how things got this way. According to the conventional view provided by Aristotle in Metaphysics A, the Ionians proposed that everything is derived from a primordial substance and that, despite differences in the world (...) we now experience, all these things reduce ultimately to just one basic stuff, whether it be Thales' water, Anaximander's boundless, or Anaximenes' air . But Graham thinks Aristotle has it wrong and proposes a different story: the Ionians held that in the beginning there was a primordial substance, but it gave rise in turn to other, new substances, the original stuff perishing in the process . Graham's book sets out to challenge MM and to champion instead GST. He aims to show that GST is historically appropriate, philosophically coherent, and dialectically relevant. Ultimately, this is not just to urge a revision of Ionian beginnings but also to trace out the implications of GST in order to produce a new narrative of Presocratic philosophy, one that sees these Ionian beginnings as a clear precursor to. (shrink)

Warranting further examination is how the nascent philosophical tradition initially spread to this region from its Ionian provenance. Despite numerous ancient attestations that Parmenides of Elea was influenced, or even directly instructed, by the Ionian-born Xenophanes, many modern scholars remain skeptical of this historical association. The extent of this skepticism ranges from cautious uncertainty to outright denial of any historical plausibility. The skeptical grounds similarly vary, from distrusting the historical veracity of late and/or perhaps biased commentators, to understanding (...) these thinkers as involved in radically different projects. This essay aims to challenge the skeptical position, and establish a direct link disseminating Ionian philosophy to Magna Graecia via Xenophanes and Parmenides. The argument is straightforward. First, the ancient geographical and temporal evidence is noted, establishing that it was possible for Parmenides to have been influenced and/or taught by Xenophanes. Next, the metaphysical and epistemological parallels between these thinkers are considered. Despite notable differences, on balance, these close parallels suggest against the skeptical view, making it quite plausible to impute a direct intellectual link between these thinkers. Third, I consider ancient claims that both thinkers were engaging with religious topics, offering a sort of “rational theology.” This evidence for a close intellectual relationship between these thinkers has been entirely ignored by modern scholars, and orthodox interpretative models cannot readily provide a charitable explanation for them. However, by reconsidering the theistic content in Parmenides’s poem, a new interpretative approach is revealed which can. Once this evidence is considered in its totality, the case for imputing a close and direct intellectual heritage from Xenophanes to Parmenides proves quite substantial. (shrink)

Les deux thèses principales de ce livre sont d’une part que les premiers penseurs ioniens, Anaximandre, Anaximène, Héraclite, ne furent pas des partisans du « monisme matériel », comme le voulait Aristote, d’autre part que les physiciens du ve siècle, Anaxagore et Empédocle, et dans un second temps les atomistes, loin de s’opposer à Parménide, furent en réalité ses héritiers : ils acceptèrent sa critique de la théorie du changement défendue par les premiers Ioniens (nommée par l’auteur Genera...

This article discusses Xenophanes' “cloud astro-physics”. It analyses and explains all heavenly and meteorological phenomena in terms of clouds. It provides a view of this newer Xenophanes, who is now being recognized as an important philosopher-scientist in his own right and a crucial figure in the development of critical thought about human knowledge and its objects in the next generation of Presocratic thinkers. Xenophanes' account has been preserved in Aëtius, the doxographic compendium reconstructed by Hermann Diels late in the nineteenth (...) century mainly from two sources that show extensive parallelism: pseudo-Plutarch Placita Philosophorum or Epitome of Physical Opinions ; and Ioannes Stobaeus' Eclogae Physicae or Physical Extracts. In the Stobaeus version, which is also the one printed in the standard edition of the Pre-socratics. (shrink)

SECTION I THE PRE-HIPPOCRATICS AND PLATO So far as is known Ionian philosophy was not connected with medicine in any way. It was, in fact, a thing apart, ...

The Western tradition of philosophy began in Greece with a cluster of thinkers often called the Presocratics, whose influence has been incalculable. They include the early Ionian cosmologists, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, the Eleatics (Parmenides, Melissus, and Zeno), Empedocles, Anaxagoras, the atomists and the sophists. All these thinkers are discussed in this 1999 volume both as individuals and collectively in chapters on rational theology, epistemology, psychology, rhetoric and relativism, justice, and poetics. A chapter on causality extends the focus to include (...) historians and medical writers. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Preface Ionian Beginnings Heraclitus Parmenides Fifth‐Century Atomisms Conclusion References and Recommended Reading.

Philosophy arose in Greece in a three-fold birth, first in 6th century Ionia, then in 6th century south Italy, and finally in 5th century Athens. This triple-birth, together with the character and differences of these three beginnings, becomes intelligible when the historical background and matrix involved are recalled. Richard Gotshalk begins this work with an extended sketch of that background, emphasizing the emergence of poetry as a truth-revealer beyond myth and the role of Homer and Hesiod in shaping by (...) their poetic achievements, the matrix within which philosophy arose. From that background, Gotshalk then offers an understanding of the origins and initial shapes of philosophy in Greece, taking Heraclitus as exemplifying the Ionian beginning, Parmenides the south Italian, and Plato and Aristotle the Athenian. The work concludes with a brief sketch of the features and emphases which mark the Greek realization of philosophical thought, and distinguish philosophy in its beginnings in Greece from philosophy in its beginnings in India and China. (shrink)

This book examines the philosophies of nature of the early Greek thinkers and argues that a significant and thoroughgoing shift is required in our understanding of them. In contrast with the natural world of the earliest Greek literature, often the result of arbitrary divine causation, in the work of early Ionian philosophers we see the idea of a cosmos: ordered worlds where there is complete regularity. How was this order generated and maintained and what underpinned those regularities? What analogies (...) or models were used for the order of the cosmos? What did they think about causation and explanatory structure? How did they frame natural laws? Andrew Gregory draws on recent work on mechanistic philosophy and its history, on the historiography of the relation of science to art, religion and magic, and on the fragments and doxography of the early Greek thinkers to argue that there has been a tendency to overestimate the extent to which these early Greek philosophies of nature can be described as 'mechanistic'. We have underestimated how far they were committed to other modes of explanation and ontologies, and we have underestimated, underappreciated and indeed underexplored how plausible and good these philosophies would have been in context. (shrink)

Philosophical reflection on the conditions of knowledge did not begin in a cultural vacuum. Several centuries before the Ionian thinkers began their investigations, the Homeric bards had identified various factors that militate against a secure grasp of the truth. In the words of the ‘second invocation of the Muses’ in Iliad II: “you, goddesses, are present and know all things, whereas we mortals hear only a rumor and know nothing.” Similarly Archilochus: “Of such a sort, Glaucus, son of Leptines, (...) is the mind of mortal man, whatever Zeus may bring him for the day, for he thinks such things as he meets with.” When one adds the truism that the scope of human experience pales in comparison with the synoptic view of events enjoyed by the gods, it follows that for most matters it is for the gods to know and mortals merely to conjecture. Traces of the older ‘poetic pessimism’ can be seen in the teachings of many of the first philosophers. Alcmaeon reaffirms that “while the gods enjoy clear and certain knowledge of all things, mortals must conjecture from signs” (B 1). Although Xenophanes encourages inquiry into a wide range of phenomena, he concludes that “No man has known nor will there be anyone who knows the clear and sure truth concerning the gods and what I say about all things” (B 34). And when philosophers begin to affirm a more optimistic view they often do so in terms that invite comparison with the older outlook. The chief truth Heraclitus claims to have discovered is the logos or ‘basic formula’ which holds everywhere and forever (B 1, 30, 80, and 90). Parmenides provides reason to think that human beings can discover the truth even about things located “far off” (B 4). And both Empedocles and Democritus contrast the inferior awareness of those “who think in terms of what they have met with” with the wisdom available to those who have heard and ponder their teachings (B 131). For these thinkers, separation in space and time—the old ‘locality problem’—no longer posed an impediment to knowledge. -/- . (shrink)

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)

The questions that occupied early Ionian philosophers are very general in nature, and are not linked to the various skills and crafts that surface early in Greek civilization. The awe and wonder fuelling these questions were directed towards large scale phenomena, and—according to the interpretation presented in this essay—called for more than mere re-descriptions or re-labellings of various features of reality. They called for explanations, but the notion of an intellectually adequate explanation took a long time to develop. Conceptions (...) of adequate explanation were changing throughout Pre-Socratic philosophy. It was left to Aristotle to attempt to capture the various models, and give them a unifying structure within an explicit theory. (shrink)

This volume deals with the nature of Presocratic thought in general; the sources of our knowledge of the Presocratics; the earliest philosophers up to Heraclitus. The articles cover a wide range of significant topics: mathematics, contrary qualities in Presocratic thought, equality and justice, the question of Ionian "science". Several traditional views are challenged and tempered. Gregory Vlastos shows how it is quite wrong to divorce the Presocratic Physiologoi from their religious heritage. He thinks that Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy (...) has created the impression that the Presocratics were mere naturalists completely bracketed off from their religious beliefs and feelings. W. K. C. Guthrie has an interesting article on "Aristotle as Historian." Guthrie has found scholars who have so canonized Cherniss' work on Aristotle's criticism of the Presocratics that Aristotle is completely written off as biased. Guthrie reasons that there is much historical merit in Aristotle's references to Presocratic thought even though Aristotle approaches them from his own point of view. This volume also contains a very spirited controversy between Karl Popper and G. S. Kirk. Popper advocates a return to the Presocratic tradition which witnessed a new cosmology with each generation. This was possible, Popper claims, because it was "a tradition of critical discussion which tolerated "criticism and refutation," e.g., Anaximander's challenge of Thales. Popper asserts that each man put forth a new view because he was not tied to observation and inductive methods. Kirk takes issue with Popper, maintaining that Presocratic theories are very much a part of their observations. He strongly criticizes Popper for ignoring the historicity of the Presocratic theories and attempting to force them into a contemporary frame-work. All in all, this volume is an excellent edition of Presocratic scholarship. A second volume will range from Parmenides to Democritus.--J. J. R. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek PhilosophyPatricia CurdA. A. Long, editor. The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. xxxii + 427. Cloth, $54.95. Paper, $19.95.The Cambridge Companions are designed both to introduce and to survey, aims that anyone who teaches introductory courses knows are not fully compatible. The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy is successful because its contributors have (...) kept to a uniform tone of mostly introduction, with some reference to recent developments and controversies in the field. There are sixteen essays, with a judicious mix of chapters on particular figures and on general topics.A. A. Long provides a helpful introduction, discussing the problems of dealing with the fragmentary evidence for these philosophers, and giving an account of the nature and scope of early Greek thought. (He also argues—not entirely persuasively—that we should give up the nineteenth century name "Presocratics" for these thinkers.) Jaap Mansfeld explains the problems of sources and doxography (the chapter is quite compressed and could be rather overwhelming for the newcomer to the area), while Keimpe Algra surveys Ionian cosmology. Carl Huffman provides a masterful discussion of early Pythagoreanism, attempting to sort out what we can and cannot be justified in claiming about Pre-Platonic Pythagoreanism. The chapters on individual thinkers mostly provide systematic overviews. Edward Hussey contributes an exemplary chapter on Heraclitus, and David Sedley one on Parmenides and Melissus (it is good to see Melissus treated seriously), with Richard McKirahan weighing in on Zeno (mostly on the paradoxes of motion but with some attention to the arguments against plurality). The discussions of individual Presocratics are rounded out with Daniel Graham's treatment of Empedocles' and Anaxagoras' responses to Parmenides, and C. C. W. Taylor on the Atomists. Sarah Broadie considers rational theology and James Lesher early Greek epistemology, while André Laks surveys ancient theories of soul, sensation, and thought. Paul Woodruff and Fernanda Decleva Caizzi provide chapters on the Sophists, the former discussing Protagoras and Gorgias, the latter, Protagoras and Antiphon. Mario Vegetti undertakes an examination of the notion of causation in early Greek thought, and Diskin Clay explores the poetics of the Presocratic philosophers. The book opens with short discussions—three paragraphs devoted to life, sources, and works for each of the thinkers who figure in the period (in alphabetical rather than even roughly chronological order), a chronological chart, and a map. There is a large and useful—though necessarily selective— bibliography (supplemented in the notes to some chapters by references to articles that are not included in the main bibliography), an index locorum, and an index of names and subjects that [End Page 429] includes modern scholars "only if their views are cited in the main text or discussed in footnotes" (which makes it difficult to use in tracking down references). Unfortunately, as in all the Cambridge Companions, notes are at the end of articles rather than at the foot of the page, making necessary a fair bit of flipping while reading.How well do the contributors succeed in meeting the needs of the intended readers of the series? For the most part, very well; the novice reader will find this an accessible guide to Early Greek philosophy. The various discussions are solid and well-informed, and the authors have indicated issues and interpretations that are controversial (for example, Taylor takes time to consider objections to his earlier criticism of Vlastos on the connection between atomistic metaphysics and ethics, and Hussey is careful to note the traditional flashpoints of disagreement in Heraclitus interpretation). It is also good that some of the Sophists are included (it is worth considering how viable the traditional distinction between the Sophists and the Philosophers really is), and inclusion of both the medical tradition and the issue of poetics is very welcome. Further chapters considering in more detail the cosmologies of post-Milesians (including Parmenides) and on the philosophical uses made of the early Greek thinkers by Plato and Aristotle would have rounded things out, but these would have made an already big book bigger. As perhaps befits an introductory survey, most of the interpretations lean to the traditional - someone looking for... (shrink)

Africa is often considered by the westerners as a continent of emotional and sentimental nature and as a result lacking in the criticality that would make the people philosophical. However, it must be remembered that civilisation has its cradle in Africa, precisely in Egypt. It must also be noted that most of the important figures in the world history as well as the biblical history in one way or the other travelled to Africa, for instance, the Ionian philosophers, Moses, (...) Jesus Christ and a host of others. Hence, they were undoubtedly influenced by the Egyptian thought. The blatant denial and the unbearable unwillingness of the western world to accept this crystalline fact is what spurred the researcher to carry out this study. The writer, therefore primarily employed the reflective and analytical methods to achieve the purpose of the study, that the Greek Philosophy has its origins in Africa. (shrink)

Explores some steps toward non-assimilative encounters in the "global village.".

Comparative political theory is at best an embryonic and marginalized endeavor. As practiced in most Western universities, the study of political theory generally involves a rehearsal of the canon of Western political thought from Plato to Marx. Only rarely are practitioners of political thought willing (and professionally encouraged) to transgress the canon and thereby the cultural boundaries of North America and Europe in the direction of genuine comparative investigation. Border Crossings presents an effort to remedy this situation, fully launching a (...) new era in political theory. Thirteen scholars from around the world examine the various political traditions of West, South, and East Asia and engage in a reflective cross-cultural discussion that belies the assumptions of an Asian "essence" and of an unbridgeable gulf between West and non-West. The denial of essential differences does not, however, amount to an endorsement of essential sameness. As viewed and as practiced by contributors to this ground-breaking volume, comparative political theorizing must steer a course between uniformity and radical separation--this is the path of "border crossings.". (shrink)

Bourdieu’s thought is disturbing. Provocative. Scandalous even, at least for those who do not easily tolerate the unmitigated truth about the social. Nonetheless his ideas, among the most important and innovative of our time, are here to stay. This thought has taken form in the course of a career and through works on diverse subjects that have constructed a far-reaching analytical model of social life, which the author calls more readily an anthropology rather than a sociology. In their totality, they (...) constitute today an original and powerful proposal to explain human practices. In the face of criticisms commonly leveled at Bourdieu’s thought (notably the charge that it reduces everything to a single schematic model), it is important to identify the spirit of his enterprise. Early on, it is true, his thought drew on a few fundamental concepts—the trilogy habitus, field (champ), practice (pratique)—to which it constantly returned, and followed a clearly defined trajectory. At the same time, however, he continually reformulated, adapted, and refined his analytical model, depending on the operations to which he subjected new objects of inquiry. The regenerative and transformative force of his thought was supported by two convictions. First, that there being nothing more vain than theory for theory’s sake, it is preferable that theoretical production originate in the study of concrete and occasionally very specific cases. Second, that in order to escape stereotypical classifications, boundaries separating disciplines are best transgressed, thereby favoring new constructions of the object of inquiry. (shrink)

This first volume takes the story from its beginnings in Ionian philosophy as far as the formation of the Atomic Theory and the first criticisms of it by Plato and Aristotle. The second volume will describe the cosmology of Plato and Aristotle, the attempt by Epicurean opponents to revive Atomism and later developments of the debate in classical philosophy and science up to the sixth century of our era. Both are accessible to anyone interested in the history (...) of science and philosophy, even if they have no specialized knowledge of Greek philosophy and no Greek; but professional scholars too will find much of importance to them. (shrink)

The article assumes that the philosophers known as “pre-Socratics” should be understood for analyzing their fragments and for a critical analysis of the testimonies about them that have come to us. The Aristotelian reading prevailed, but today we are able to understand the Ionian philosophy in its particularity, each of its philosophers and the ideas common to them. We approach these philosophers together as members of a historical tradition, as this undoubtedly seems unavoidable for their proper understanding, and (...) we pay attention to the fundamental notions of necessity, evolution and freedom, a kind of backbone of Anaximander's thought to that of Lucretius. Especially in contrast to the idea of final cause, we consider that the Ionians followed the opposite path to the Aristotelian and that the Epicureans are their main heirs, hence the expression “Ionian-Epicurean philosophy”, for us created to designate what we believe to have been a long and legitimate philosophical tradition. (shrink)

The expression nature has seen revisions since its beginning in the Ionian philosophy, with changes both in the differentiation of its content and the hierarchisations of abstractions. This complexity is anything but semantically unfortunate. The conceptual changes reflect the place of the human life form in nature and its epistemic, ethical and aesthetic attitudes towards nature. The contributions discuss the various aspects of the human relationship to nature.