580 - 400 BC
(08 January 2021)
It is truly remarkable that so much of the thought and ideas of the Presocratics and Sophists have come down to us. This is especially so considering that most of these philosophers lived before the age of recorded history. It seems as if suddenly, emerging from the mysterious "Apeiron," the entire discipline of philosophy began in a flash and set off a 2,500-year tradition of inquiry and thought. Reading about these philosophers can be a tedious task. Much of what we have is either speculation on the makeup of the world, which in many cases is now considered 'junk science,' or incomprehensible contemplation on the nature of being. For example, Anaximedes' assertion that the Sun was Earth-like until it caught fire from moving so fast through the air may seem laughable to us now. But we must remember that in his time, the prevailing thought was that the Sun was the corporeal avatar of Helios and his chariot. These philosophers were all equally wondrous, curious, and irreverent. Xenophanes provides a perfect example with his statement: "If cows and horses or lions had hands, or could draw with their hands and make things as men can, horses would have drawn horse-like gods, cows cow-like gods, and each species would have made the gods’ bodies just like their own. Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, and Thracians that theirs have blue eyes and red hair." Heraclitus, on the other hand, was even more brutally honest with his statement: "Corpses should be disposed of more readily than dung." Of these philosophers, I only found Anaximander and Heraclitus truly worth reading. Anaximander asserted that the "Apeiron," the boundless and infinite, was the source of all else. He also, somewhat surprisingly, described the law of the conservation of energy (albeit primitively) and the water cycle. Heraclitus, on the other hand, famously asserted that the world was in constant flux and one could never step in the same river twice. Flux, chaos, or "war" - as he puts it - is the driving force of everything. He also believed that the only thing that unites all is the logos, the word, the reason, and the order. There are other interesting philosophers in this volume such as Parmenides, the Pythagoreans, and the Atomists. However, I will not speak of them here. The Sophists, on the other hand, were more comprehensible but less interesting. The only one who I found to be worth reading was Protagoras, who asserted that "Man is the measure of all things - of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not." This extraordinary statement of humanism has had a profound impact on Western thought and reverberates all the way to Dostoevsky's theory of collective sin and Sartre's doctrine of collective definition. Protagoras was a relativist who believed that there is no truth and all is perception. Despite this, he also believed that good leaders can make their communities more ethical, an idea that is as relevant today as it was then. Aside from those mentioned above, most of these philosophers are not worth reading except for their historical value. Most of their ideas are either scientifically useless or have been surpassed by later thinkers. However, we do owe a great debt to these gentlemen for their courage in asking the big questions and for laying the foundation for the development of Western philosophy.