What do you think?
Rate this book
Introduction to Presocratics: A Thematic Approach to Early Greek Philosophy with Key Readings
INTRODUCTION TO PRESOCRATICS “The general public and scholars alike will find Introduction to Presocratics stimulating, engaging and exceptionally useful. Stamatellos’ intriguing and illuminating theme-based approach to this subject and his inclusion of a fresh translation of all the major fragments make this book a ‘must have’ for anyone interested in Presocratic philosophy.”
Robert D. Luginbill, University of Louisville “An excellent introduction to early Greek philosophy – full of information, yet eminently readable and clearly organised. The thematic treatment brings new perspectives and fresh philosophical insights.”
Andrew Smith, University College Dublin “Surveying the key surviving texts theme by theme sooner than man by man, Stamatellos offers the beginner clear and comprehensive insight into the compelling inquiries of the early Greek thinkers.”
Susan Prince, University of Cincinnati “Giannis Stamatellos’ book is a very elegant and finely structured introduction to the fascinating beginnings of Western thought. He has succeeded in making a rather difficult and complex topic extremely accessible and stimulating.”
Mark Beck, University of South Carolina Despite what is commonly taught, Western philosophy did not begin with Socrates. The roots of Western philosophy and science, in fact, run much deeper than this watershed philosophical figure – to a series of innovative Greek thinkers of the 6th and 5th century BCE. Introduction to Presocratics presents a succinct overview of early Greek thought by following a thematic exposition of the topics and enquiries explored by the first philosophers of the Western tradition. Ionian figures such as Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Pythagoras are covered; Eleatics such as Parmenides and Zeno; and Pluralists or Neo-Ionians such as Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus. Key areas of Presocratic philosophy are addressed, including principles, cosmos, being, soul, knowledge, and ethics. A brief account of the legacy and reception of the Presocratics in later philosophical traditions is also included. Also featured is an original translation of the main Presocratic fragments by renowned classics professor Rosemary Wright. Introduction to Presocratics offers illuminating insights into the true pioneers of philosophical thought in the Western tradition.
Robert D. Luginbill, University of Louisville “An excellent introduction to early Greek philosophy – full of information, yet eminently readable and clearly organised. The thematic treatment brings new perspectives and fresh philosophical insights.”
Andrew Smith, University College Dublin “Surveying the key surviving texts theme by theme sooner than man by man, Stamatellos offers the beginner clear and comprehensive insight into the compelling inquiries of the early Greek thinkers.”
Susan Prince, University of Cincinnati “Giannis Stamatellos’ book is a very elegant and finely structured introduction to the fascinating beginnings of Western thought. He has succeeded in making a rather difficult and complex topic extremely accessible and stimulating.”
Mark Beck, University of South Carolina Despite what is commonly taught, Western philosophy did not begin with Socrates. The roots of Western philosophy and science, in fact, run much deeper than this watershed philosophical figure – to a series of innovative Greek thinkers of the 6th and 5th century BCE. Introduction to Presocratics presents a succinct overview of early Greek thought by following a thematic exposition of the topics and enquiries explored by the first philosophers of the Western tradition. Ionian figures such as Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Pythagoras are covered; Eleatics such as Parmenides and Zeno; and Pluralists or Neo-Ionians such as Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus. Key areas of Presocratic philosophy are addressed, including principles, cosmos, being, soul, knowledge, and ethics. A brief account of the legacy and reception of the Presocratics in later philosophical traditions is also included. Also featured is an original translation of the main Presocratic fragments by renowned classics professor Rosemary Wright. Introduction to Presocratics offers illuminating insights into the true pioneers of philosophical thought in the Western tradition.
- GenresPhilosophyGreece
176 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
4 people are currently reading
22 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 18, 2024
This book is more than good. It's chef's kiss. It's comprehensive and pleasant, well structured and, cherry on top, it contains an appendix with translations of all the main fragments. Whether a student or teacher or simply interested in understanding the Presocratics I wholeheartedly recommend this one to you. If only someone could write something similar about Immanuel Kant! We need the de-obscurization of philosophy because critical thinking can come in handy, especially nowadays that we have to constantly process more information than our brains can manage. Philosophy should be available for everyone and not an occupation reserved solely for academic intellectuals.
The Presocratic philosophers moved from mythology to rational thinking as they explored the forces and principles that underlie human life and the natural world.
Some of the most important Presocratics are:
The Ionians:
Thales of Miletus (fl. c. 585 BCE), Anaximander (fl. c. 550 BCE), Anaximenes (fl. c. 545 BCE), Xenophanes (fl. c. 540 BCE), Heraclitus (fl. c. 500 BCE),
The Pythagoreans:
Pythagoras (fl. c. 540 BCE) he created a school with many followers through the centuries.
The Eleatics:
Parmenides (fl. c. 480 BCE) , Zeno of Elea (fl. c. 450 BCE), Melissus of Samos (fl. c. 440 BCE).
The Pluralists (or Neo-Ionians):
Empedocles (c. 460 BCE), Anaxagoras (c. 450 BCE), Leucippus (fl. c. 450 BCE) and Democritus (born c. 460 BCE), Metrodorus of Chios (fl. c. 400 BCE).
The Presocratics argued about the material and formal principles on which the universe is founded.
The Ionians conceived of matter as a self-developing living force (later defined as an archē), which can produce all animated bodies and make them reproduce.
Thales initially is recorded as claiming that water is the primary material stuff of the universe; Anaximander postulated the apeiron, an unlimited and indefinite material mass as the source of everything;
Anaximenes returned to Thales’ monistic view and proposed air as the primary material principle.
Other Ionians furthered this discussion of the Milesians: Xenophanes attached particular importance to earth and water in natural phenomena, and Heraclitus envisioned nature as subject to the alterations of an ever living fire, which produces and regulates the universe according to the hidden cosmic rhythm of the logos.
Diogenes maintained later on that the material principle of the universe combined the characteristics of air and fire.
In a radical departure from Ionian materialism, however, the Pythagoreans proposed that the cosmos is founded on numbers and structured according to mathematical relations.
Later Presocratics such as Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Democritus denied that plurality and change derive from a single material principle, but they viewed the cosmos as a unity arising from a combination of elemental matter and forces.
Empedocles accounted for change with the theory of four basic material elements – fire, air, water and earth – mixing and separating under the opposite cosmic forces of attraction and repulsion, which he called Love and Strife.
Anaxagoras introduced two cosmic principles: an initial compact mixture of elemental ingredients and an active formative force, nous, which initiated a rotation in the primordial mass and controled the subsequent expansion of the universe.
Leucippus and Democritus proposed an early atomic theory, in which reality was thought to consist of innumerable imperceptible units of matter called ‘atoms’ from their defining property of being indivisible; these move perpetually in a boundless void, according to the ‘necessity’ of natural law.
In their quest they tried to understand and define the structure and formation of Cosmos, the meaning of life, the function of the soul, intelligence, knowledge, truth, wisdom and pondered upon ethical matters.
My favorite approach is the one of the two pluralists, Leucippus and Democritus, specifically their atomic theory:
The early atomists maintained that the atoms and the void are the two fundamental principles of reality. Everything, for them, consisted of imperceptible and indivisible (that is, ‘a-tomic’) physical units: atoms, infinite in number, which move perpetually in an infinite void.
Like letters and the spaces between them, which make up different texts according to their arrangement, material bodies with different biological and perceptible characteristics are made from various combinations of atoms and void; and the interesting fact about this simile is that in ancient Greek the word for ‘letter’ is the same as one of the words for ‘principle’: stoicheion [...] Empty space or void is necessary for atomic motion. The motion of the atoms causes collisions that result either in atomic intertwining or in atomic scattering.
On the other hand I have trouble to understand Parmenides' theory of being.
Being is ungenerated, indestructible, unique, unmoved, unchanging, timeless, continuous, and complete in itself. Being is un-extended in time and un-expanded in space; it is universally equal to itself and uniformly determined.
So how this being relates with the Cosmos? Cosmos is generated, destructible, plural, moving, changing, temporary, intermittent and partial. Cosmos expands in times and space and is variable. Soooo... Is it part of this world? If so, how? Is there a kind of interaction between the being and the world? Do they exist separately in different realms? Because it seems to me that this being consists of everything the world is not. Doesn't that prove that the Parmenidian being is actually a Non- Being? Anyhow this being is quite useless and unnecessary since the world seems to be doing OK without it.
Summarizing Parmenides’ argument: speech and thought require their subject ‘to be.’ Since ‘not-being’ should be rejected as absurd and the putting together of ‘being’ and ‘not-being’ is contradictory, the only true option that remains is ‘being’.
How he jumps from the subject of speech and thought to an unmoved and timeless being? How he extracts the qualities of this being after examining the functions of thought and speech? Because I can think of a non-being and I can surely speak about it. For example I can think about a pig with platinum hair walking on high heels. I can tell you about how we became friends and exchanged birthday cards and flowers. But how can this thinking and talking make my pig an actual being?
So the What can be spoken and thought of must exist, for it can exist but nothing can not, argument seems rather absurd.
I think that when we begin with the conviction of the existence of something and then try to prove its existence we do things in the wrong order. We must firstly gather enough evidence about the existence of something and then to acknowledge and accept its existence.
Otherwise we are denying reality as Zeno (Parmenides's student) with his paradox about Achilles and the Tortoise:
The slowest will never be overtaken in running by the fastest, for the pursuer must always come to the point which the pursued has left, so that the slower must always be some distance ahead.
Here the purpose of the runner is neither to cover a set distance nor to reach a finishing line, but to overtake another, who is on the move as well. When Achilles (the faster runner) has reached the tortoise at point P1, the tortoise will be at the next point, P2; when Achilles reaches P2, the tortoise will be at P3 – and so on, ad infinitum.
Take the infinity out and all that remains are two finite, mortal beings running at different speeds inside the same finite space and... problem solved.
The Presocratic philosophers moved from mythology to rational thinking as they explored the forces and principles that underlie human life and the natural world.
Some of the most important Presocratics are:
The Ionians:
Thales of Miletus (fl. c. 585 BCE), Anaximander (fl. c. 550 BCE), Anaximenes (fl. c. 545 BCE), Xenophanes (fl. c. 540 BCE), Heraclitus (fl. c. 500 BCE),
The Pythagoreans:
Pythagoras (fl. c. 540 BCE) he created a school with many followers through the centuries.
The Eleatics:
Parmenides (fl. c. 480 BCE) , Zeno of Elea (fl. c. 450 BCE), Melissus of Samos (fl. c. 440 BCE).
The Pluralists (or Neo-Ionians):
Empedocles (c. 460 BCE), Anaxagoras (c. 450 BCE), Leucippus (fl. c. 450 BCE) and Democritus (born c. 460 BCE), Metrodorus of Chios (fl. c. 400 BCE).
The Presocratics argued about the material and formal principles on which the universe is founded.
The Ionians conceived of matter as a self-developing living force (later defined as an archē), which can produce all animated bodies and make them reproduce.
Thales initially is recorded as claiming that water is the primary material stuff of the universe; Anaximander postulated the apeiron, an unlimited and indefinite material mass as the source of everything;
Anaximenes returned to Thales’ monistic view and proposed air as the primary material principle.
Other Ionians furthered this discussion of the Milesians: Xenophanes attached particular importance to earth and water in natural phenomena, and Heraclitus envisioned nature as subject to the alterations of an ever living fire, which produces and regulates the universe according to the hidden cosmic rhythm of the logos.
Diogenes maintained later on that the material principle of the universe combined the characteristics of air and fire.
In a radical departure from Ionian materialism, however, the Pythagoreans proposed that the cosmos is founded on numbers and structured according to mathematical relations.
Later Presocratics such as Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Democritus denied that plurality and change derive from a single material principle, but they viewed the cosmos as a unity arising from a combination of elemental matter and forces.
Empedocles accounted for change with the theory of four basic material elements – fire, air, water and earth – mixing and separating under the opposite cosmic forces of attraction and repulsion, which he called Love and Strife.
Anaxagoras introduced two cosmic principles: an initial compact mixture of elemental ingredients and an active formative force, nous, which initiated a rotation in the primordial mass and controled the subsequent expansion of the universe.
Leucippus and Democritus proposed an early atomic theory, in which reality was thought to consist of innumerable imperceptible units of matter called ‘atoms’ from their defining property of being indivisible; these move perpetually in a boundless void, according to the ‘necessity’ of natural law.
In their quest they tried to understand and define the structure and formation of Cosmos, the meaning of life, the function of the soul, intelligence, knowledge, truth, wisdom and pondered upon ethical matters.
My favorite approach is the one of the two pluralists, Leucippus and Democritus, specifically their atomic theory:
The early atomists maintained that the atoms and the void are the two fundamental principles of reality. Everything, for them, consisted of imperceptible and indivisible (that is, ‘a-tomic’) physical units: atoms, infinite in number, which move perpetually in an infinite void.
Like letters and the spaces between them, which make up different texts according to their arrangement, material bodies with different biological and perceptible characteristics are made from various combinations of atoms and void; and the interesting fact about this simile is that in ancient Greek the word for ‘letter’ is the same as one of the words for ‘principle’: stoicheion [...] Empty space or void is necessary for atomic motion. The motion of the atoms causes collisions that result either in atomic intertwining or in atomic scattering.
On the other hand I have trouble to understand Parmenides' theory of being.
Being is ungenerated, indestructible, unique, unmoved, unchanging, timeless, continuous, and complete in itself. Being is un-extended in time and un-expanded in space; it is universally equal to itself and uniformly determined.
So how this being relates with the Cosmos? Cosmos is generated, destructible, plural, moving, changing, temporary, intermittent and partial. Cosmos expands in times and space and is variable. Soooo... Is it part of this world? If so, how? Is there a kind of interaction between the being and the world? Do they exist separately in different realms? Because it seems to me that this being consists of everything the world is not. Doesn't that prove that the Parmenidian being is actually a Non- Being? Anyhow this being is quite useless and unnecessary since the world seems to be doing OK without it.
Summarizing Parmenides’ argument: speech and thought require their subject ‘to be.’ Since ‘not-being’ should be rejected as absurd and the putting together of ‘being’ and ‘not-being’ is contradictory, the only true option that remains is ‘being’.
How he jumps from the subject of speech and thought to an unmoved and timeless being? How he extracts the qualities of this being after examining the functions of thought and speech? Because I can think of a non-being and I can surely speak about it. For example I can think about a pig with platinum hair walking on high heels. I can tell you about how we became friends and exchanged birthday cards and flowers. But how can this thinking and talking make my pig an actual being?
So the What can be spoken and thought of must exist, for it can exist but nothing can not, argument seems rather absurd.
I think that when we begin with the conviction of the existence of something and then try to prove its existence we do things in the wrong order. We must firstly gather enough evidence about the existence of something and then to acknowledge and accept its existence.
Otherwise we are denying reality as Zeno (Parmenides's student) with his paradox about Achilles and the Tortoise:
The slowest will never be overtaken in running by the fastest, for the pursuer must always come to the point which the pursued has left, so that the slower must always be some distance ahead.
Here the purpose of the runner is neither to cover a set distance nor to reach a finishing line, but to overtake another, who is on the move as well. When Achilles (the faster runner) has reached the tortoise at point P1, the tortoise will be at the next point, P2; when Achilles reaches P2, the tortoise will be at P3 – and so on, ad infinitum.
Take the infinity out and all that remains are two finite, mortal beings running at different speeds inside the same finite space and... problem solved.
November 4, 2023
Great primer. Honestly, given we're running off literal fragments, I'd consider it more in-depth than a primer. But mebbe that's just me.
Loved that they collected the fragments separately at the end.
Loved that they collected the fragments separately at the end.
December 9, 2022
This is a great resource and helped my understand the presocratics ideas for my class. I definitely recommend for beginners like me hah.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews