This entry in Oxford University Press’s series of “Very Short Introductions” has a specific aim. It endeavors to offer readers a comprehensive overview within just 168 pages. The focus is on the Presocratics, those philosophers of the Greek-speaking world who lived prior to Socrates and were among the first to jot down their musings regarding the nature of reality and the physical composition of the universe.

Catherine Osborne presents the material in a way where the chapters are dedicated slightly more to general themes than to individual thinkers. She showcases some of the major contributions they made to philosophy. These include the theory that everything is composed of tiny bits called atoms, the famous paradox of Zeno and the tortoise, and the puzzle of how any change or development can occur if reason leads us to the conclusion that the universe is unchanging.

There are two aspects that make this book distinct in the realm of popular introductions to the subject. It reveals the Presocratics in a different light compared to what one might have gained from an undergraduate philosophy course years ago. The first is that Osborne emphasizes how their writings have not been preserved in their entirety. Instead, we have only fragmentary manuscripts and quoted snippets in other ancient sources. This necessitates scholars to engage in a significant amount of interpretation and guesswork. It also implies that our understanding of their thought can change when new papyri are unearthed. She uses Empedocles and an archaeological discovery in the 1990s as an illustration of this evolving perspective. The second novel concern of Osborne's work is to颠覆 the traditional portrayal of the Presocratics as a linear progression of development and progress. Since it is unknown whether they actually read each other, we shouldn't assume that each Presocratic figure was specifically responding to the one before him.

Some titles in the Very Short Introduction series are accessible to a nearly universal audience. Although Osborne attempts to avoid excessive jargon, her particular method of restating the Presocratics’ arguments presupposes that the reader already has at least some background in philosophy. Additionally, the author clearly faced the space limitations of the series. The approach she selects ultimately feels curiously truncated within a mere 168 pages. Therefore, while the novel aspects of Osborne’s presentation mentioned above are worthwhile, the reader may very well find another, less constricted introduction more satisfying. For what it's worth, Osborne does provide a Further Reading section at the end of this book.

Useful, but the thematic organization let the book down.

It would have been much better if the book had divided its chapters by thinkers or schools, zeroing in on their specific ideas. Regrettably, it didn't do that. Instead, the author opted to take a bird's-eye-view perspective, attempting to connect one thinker to others.

Thankfully, there are better introductions to the Presocratics out there. In fact, even a public domain version can be quite good. One that comes to mind is John Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy (1908).

This work offers a more in-depth and organized exploration of the Presocratic thinkers, allowing readers to truly understand their unique contributions and the evolution of their ideas.

Perhaps future editions of the book in question could consider adopting a more focused approach, similar to that of Burnet's work, to enhance its value and usefulness for readers interested in this fascinating period of philosophy.

It has been truly depressing me lately. The fact that I hadn't managed to finish a single book this year has been weighing on my mind. And perhaps it's a bit sad that the one I finally did complete was only 135 pages long. But still, it's something, right?

In a moment when I'm having to reassess life as a whole, I found myself looking back at something I was attempting to do before my life was swept away for over a year now. Philosophy has been a passion of mine ever since I got past the stage of thinking that something my Dad used to say to my brother and me when we were kids was dumb and made no sense. He would always say, “people don't make you angry, you make yourself angry.” I vividly remember thinking to myself how he could come up with such a statement.

As the years have passed by, I have gradually come to understand the profound wisdom behind many of the things my Dad would say. And somewhere along the way, I decided to search for wisdom itself. How much of that is true in my “archai” is difficult to determine. It seems clear enough to point to, though. I really appreciate these Oxford classics. I have about 20 of them and have only just finished one. I think Oxford publishing has great value. I often find myself flipping through any of their books that I come across on subjects that interest me.

I discovered this particular book to my liking because of the author's attempt to do something different rather than simply presenting a linear history of philosophy. It's a chapter-by-chapter exploration of the ideas that the presocratics grappled with, and that many of us have been dealing with over the millennia. I found the book to have excellent insights and a refreshing perspective on history (for me, at least). For anyone else who is looking to take a peek into what it means to be presocratic, I would highly recommend this book. It was an enjoyable step on my path.

Very good

The given description is highly praiseworthy. It indicates that the article presents a clear and understandable exposition. The organization of the content is well-structured, which helps the readers to follow the flow of ideas easily. Despite the complexity of the domain being discussed, the author manages to handle it proficiently. What stands out is the use of original fragments of texts. These not only add authenticity but also enliven the disquisition, making it more engaging and interesting for the readers. It shows the author's ability to incorporate relevant and unique sources to support the arguments. Overall, the article seems to be of high quality and值得一读 (worth reading).

Dull.

The information that is presented here is strikingly similar to that of a Wikipedia article, lacking in any real depth or additional context. It seems to be rather basic and straightforward, without any real attempt to engage the reader or offer anything truly unique.

Furthermore, the tone can be described as too cute by half. There is an almost overly simplistic and perhaps even juvenile approach to the way the content is presented, which may not be entirely appropriate for the intended audience.

This combination of dullness and an overly cute tone makes the overall piece feel somewhat lacking and unappealing. It fails to capture the reader's attention and leaves them with the impression that there is not much more to discover or explore.

Perhaps a more serious and in-depth treatment of the subject matter, along with a more mature and engaging tone, would be more effective in presenting the information in a way that is both interesting and informative.

Osborne steers clear of the typical portrayal of the presocratics as primarily cosmologists who interacted with one another in a straightforward, linear manner. In particular, he casts doubt on the idea that Parmenides was reacting to Heraclitus or vice versa.

The book commences with an engaging discussion of a papyrus that was newly pieced together in 1992. This papyrus contains fragments of Empedocles, and it challenges the traditional division between his mystical and cosmological writings. It does so by plausibly suggesting that these two aspects were actually part of a single work.

The key takeaway from this is that we should view the Presocratics as thinkers with a diverse range of interests. Just as we would anticipate such diversity among later philosophers, we should not limit our understanding of the Presocratics to a narrow focus on cosmology. By doing so, we can gain a more comprehensive and accurate appreciation of their contributions to the development of philosophy.

The text seems to be a bit of a jumble, but here's an attempt to rewrite and expand it:

The idea of something being "good" and "accessible" is an interesting one. However, spending an inordinate amount of time "debunking" the highly useful Master Narrative of the Presocratics, which is centered around Parmenides, feels rather excessive.

While the critiques of this narrative might be accurate, they come across as petty. It's as if the focus is more on nitpicking rather than truly engaging with the substance.

On a positive note, the emphasis on Empedocles is quite likable. It provides a refreshing perspective and perhaps a more in-depth exploration of this particular philosopher.

Overall, there's a need to find a balance between critiquing and appreciating the valuable contributions of the Presocratic thinkers. Maybe a more comprehensive approach that takes into account both the strengths and weaknesses of the Master Narrative would be more beneficial.

This could lead to a deeper understanding of the philosophical ideas that have shaped our intellectual heritage.

Original Article: The importance of exercise cannot be overemphasized. It helps maintain a healthy body and mind. Regular exercise can improve cardiovascular health, increase muscle strength, and boost the immune system. It also helps reduce stress and anxiety.

Expanded Article:

The significance of exercise simply cannot be overstated. It plays a crucial role in maintaining both a healthy body and a sound mind.

Regular exercise has numerous benefits. It can enhance cardiovascular health, making the heart stronger and more efficient. It also leads to an increase in muscle strength, enabling us to perform daily activities with greater ease and vigor.

Moreover, exercise is a great way to boost the immune system, making our bodies more resilient to diseases and infections. Additionally, it helps in reducing stress and anxiety, allowing us to better cope with the challenges of modern life.

In conclusion, incorporating exercise into our daily routine is essential for our overall well-being.

This book offers a rather decent introduction to the Presocratic Philosophy.

It manages to cover a substantial amount of material. However, due to the breadth of the coverage, it doesn't delve into any great depth on each individual topic.

Nevertheless, it accomplishes two important tasks quite well. Firstly, it effectively contextualizes these philosophers, providing the necessary background information to understand their place in the history of philosophy.

Secondly, it gives brief but informative introductions to their thought, allowing readers to get a sense of their main ideas and contributions.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for those looking to further their studies, it has a fairly comprehensive list of further readings. This was precisely what I was seeking, as it provides a valuable resource for those who wish to explore the subject in more detail.

Overall, this book serves as a useful starting point for anyone interested in the Presocratic Philosophy.

182 R881 2004

This code or reference number, 182 R881 2004, holds a certain significance. It could potentially be related to a specific product, project, or record.

Perhaps it is a unique identifier for a particular item in a manufacturing process. Maybe it represents a research study or a financial transaction.

Without further context, it's difficult to determine the exact meaning of 182 R881 2004. However, it serves as a point of reference that could lead to more information and understanding.

It could be used to track the progress of something, to access specific details, or to connect different pieces of data.

In conclusion, while 182 R881 2004 may seem like a random combination of numbers and letters, it likely has an important role within a particular system or context.

This is perhaps the weakest very short introduction I have read so far.

I learned exactly one thing from it: that the organization of early philosophers by First Principles is a construct that might not accurately reflect the actual timeline of these thinkers.

It also gives preferential treatment to some rather than others, such as Thales, Anaximander, and so on.

Now that you've read this, do yourself a favor and seek out a different book about Presocratic Philosophy.

The thematic arrangement, rather than arranging by particular philosophers, was chaotic and extremely difficult to follow.

It made it hard to gain a clear understanding of the ideas and contributions of each individual philosopher.

A better-structured book would likely provide a more comprehensive and coherent overview of Presocratic Philosophy, allowing readers to more easily grasp the significance and evolution of these early philosophical ideas.

So, don't waste your time with this one and look for a more suitable resource instead.

For a book of this length, Osborne accomplishes a remarkable task. She provides the reader with a fascinating look into the development of philosophy before Socrates.

Her explanation of the ideas from antiquity is captivating and far from being dull. Although she sacrifices the comprehensiveness and systematic nature of a chronological account, she achieves what a Very Short Introduction should, at least for me. It piques the reader's interest and showcases the most crucial or remarkable ideas.

In addition, she doesn't shy away from the complexity of pre-Socratic philosophy. Instead, she examines the dominant narrative of monism versus pluralism, which is centered around the question of archai (origins). This is an admirable accomplishment. Overall, it is an excellent way to introduce the reader to further studies in ancient philosophy.

[Review 1 - 17/05/17.]