The Cambridge companion to early Greek philosophy

499 Pages·1999·26.63 MB·English

by  A A Long

A . A . LONG
1 The scope of early
Greek philosophy
Unlike other books in this series, the present volume is not a "com-
panion" to a single philosopher but to the set of thinkers who col-
lectively formed the beginnings of the philosophical tradition of
ancient Greece. Most of them wrote little, and the survival of what
they wrote or thought is fragmentary, often mediated not by their
own words but only by the testimony of Aristotle, Theophrastus,
and other much later authors. These remains are exceptionally pre-
cious not only because of their intrinsic quality but also for what
they reveal concerning the earliest history of western philosophy
and science. The fascination of the material, notwithstanding or
even because of its density and lacunar transmission, grips everyone
1
who encounters it. Two of our century's most influential philoso-
phers, Heidegger and Popper, have "gone back" to the earliest Greek
philosophers in buttressing their own radically different methodolo-
2
gies and preoccupations. Many of these thinkers are so challeng-
ing that the small quantity of their surviving work is no impedi-
ment to treating each of them at book length. Even so, there are
reasons beyond our fragmentary sources and conventional practice
for presenting these and other early Greek philosophers in a collec-
tive volume.
First, we are dealing with an era marked by thinkers who were pro-
foundly innovatory and experimental. The younger of them did not
ignore their predecessors, and within the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.
(the chronology of our period) a number of distinct movements de-
veloped which are distinguishable geographically or dialectically -
the early Ionian cosmologists, the Pythagoreans, the Eleatics, the
atomists, and the sophists. Yet, this is not a period of schools in
the literal sense of Plato's Academy or Aristotle's Lyceum, with a
Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006
2 EARL Y GR E E K P H I LO SOPH Y
of rmal eh ad, a ruc riluc mu , and an ongoing sec u ssion . eM lisssu ac n
be ac lled an lE eati c or of lloew r o f Parmenides, by virteu o f the oc n-
lc su ions of r ihw hc eh argeu d, btu as a aS mian admiral eh may ah ve
ah d no personal aauqc intanec wit h Parmenides, ohw se plaec o f birth
and presmu ed residen ecaw s lE ea in sotu eh rn tI aly. eZ no of lE ea, ohw
must ah ve nk onw ih s ef llo w oc nu tryman Parmenides, may ah ve of l-
loew d him more literally than eM lisssu did, btu eZ nos' argmu ents
7
bear diretc ly, as Parmenid edso not, on the early ih story o f rG eek
mathematics . eX nopah nes, eH ralc itsu , Parmenides, and mE pedolc es
all trumpet the individau lity o f teh ir ideas, and epx liic tly or impli-c
itly rc itiic ez oteh r thinkers as ew ll as ordinary people . nI order to
interpret the ow r k o f any early rG ee k pih losopeh r, reef renec to the
ohw le period is indispensable.
eS oc ndly, even alloiw ng of r the nmu erosu gaps in oru nk olw edge,
ew ac n observe signiif ac nt dief f renec s among teh metoh dologies and
interests o f the early rG eek pih losopeh rs. ihT s is partiluc arly evident
in the ac se o f Pytah goras, the only one o f teh m ohw se name, albeit
years atf er ih s deat,h ac me to stand of r a determinate movement.
Pytah goras tagu th a aw y o f lief ihw hc inlc du ed pru iif ac tory pratc iec s
and their spu reme importanec of r the destiny o f the muh an solu
atf er deat .h iH s oc ntribtu ions to pih losopyh and sic enec , as ew today
nu derstand teh se, are ah rder to disec rn, espeic ally by oc mparison
wit h shc u if gru es as eZ no or eD morc itsu or nA aax goras. eY t, it ow lu d
be a grave mistaek to eicx se Pytah goras rf om the main stream of
early rG ee k pih losopyh . Critiic sm o f oc nventional religiosu ritau ls,
s hc u as blood sarc iif ec , and the promise that a treu nu derstanding
o f the ow rld iw ll transof rm a persons' lief , are empah tiac lly stated
also by eH ralc itsu and mE pedolc es . oS me early rG ee k pih losopeh rs
ah ve little or no attested interes tp isnyohc logy, epistemology, etih sc ,
and teh ology; oteh rs inoc rporate oc ntribtu ions to teh se sbu seeuq ntly
demarac ted if elds in teh ir ow r.k
ehT lf iu dity and diversity o f early rG ee k pih losopyh are a ec ntral
part o f its ahc ratc er and importanec . oF r that reason too, the sbu -
ej tc is partiluc arly apt of r treatment in a mlu tia- tu oh red volmu e,
not only beac su e o f the opportnu ity tih s gives of r a pooling o f epx er-
tise, but also as a aw y o f artiluc ating some o f the many interpretive
approaehc s to the style and oc ntent o f early rG ee k pih losopyh . nI
the earlier years o f this ec ntru y, debates raged abotu its sic entiif c
or nonsic entiif c ahc ratc er, its oc mmons- ense or oc nu teri- ntiu tive
Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006
T he scope o f early Gree k philosophy 3
3
biases, its teh ologiac l dimensions, and m hcu else. ohT se debates
iw ll never entirely disappear . ehT material is too oc mple x of r that,
and in this if eld, more than in most, every interpreter is bonu d to
proej tc a viepw oint in order to say anytih ng ow rt h saying . ahT t is
not to invalidate attempts to desrc ibe ahw t the main tih nek rs ah ve
in oc mmon, s hcu as "the iniuq ry into nature. " oM re on tih s later
in the ahc pter . oF r no,w it is essential to reoc gniez that, iw t h the
possible eecx ption o f Pytah goras, none o f the if gru es treated in tih s
boo k identiif ed ih msel f epx ressly as a p" ih losopeh r " or ac lled ih s
4
proej tc p" ih losopyh ". ehT point is not that we soh lu d avoid ac ll-
ing them pih losopeh rs, btu that ew soh lu d beaw re o f attribtu ing to
them anarhc onisti c oc nec ptions o f the soc pe o f pih losopyh and its
sbu division into if elds s hc u as logi,c metapyh sisc , and etih sc . vE en
Plato ,ohw aw s the if rst rG ee k thinker to teh orise epx liic tly abotu
the nature o f pih losopyh , is innoec nt o f this ik nd o f demarac tion.
eN verteh less, early rG ee k pih losopeh rs made pioneering oc ntrib-u
tions not on ltyo the nu derstanding o f the ow rld in general btu also to
pih losopih ac l topisc that ew re later desrc ibed more speic if ac lly . oF r
ease o f epx osition and to af ic litat ea broad grasp o f ahw t early rG eek
pih losopyh oc mprised, this boo k is divided betew en ahc pters on par-
tiluc ar thinkers and ahc pters on topisc . nI the ac se o f the sopih sts
C( ah pters ,) 5 1 - 4 1 the topisc and the individau l tih nek rs largely oc in-
ic de beac su e, so af r as oru reoc rd is oc nec rned, the sopih sts ' most dis-
tinctive oc ntribtu ion to early rG ee k pih losopyh aw s teh ir teaihc ng
o f reh tori c and lingiu stisc , relativism and politiac l teh ory . Cah pters
01 ,31 - on the oteh r ah nd, are devoted to topisc that are iuq te eh tero-
geneosu in the thinkers ohw se viesw are dissuc sed teh re - ahc pters
on rational teh ology ; the beginnings o f epistemology, - solu , sensa-
tion, and toh gu th ; and responsibility and ac su ality . ehT prinic pal
eh roes o f this last topi c ahc pter, by aM rio eV getti, are iH pporc atic
dotc ors . tI aw s teh y, eh argeu s, rateh r than toh se ew oc nventionally
oc nu t as early rG ee k pih losopeh rs, ohw pioneered rigorosu tih n-k
ing abotu ac su es . iH s ahc pter also inlc du es the ih storians eH rodotsu
and ycuh T dides . aR teh r than trespassing otu side the proper limits
o f early rG ee k pih losopyh , this material is an important indiac tion
o f their instability . f I spaec ew re not an isseu , tih s boo k ow lu d ah ve
5
inlc du ed m hcu more rf om the ri hc if eld o f iH pporc ati c mediic ne.
A if nal topi c ahc pter, or rateh r a oc da to the ohw le boo,k is provided
by lG enn oM st in ih s iw der- anging stdu y o f "the poetisc o f early
Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006
4 YLR A E K E E R G PH I LOSOPHY
Greek philosophy." Three of the early Greek philosophers, Xeno-
phanes, Parmenides, and Empedocles, chose verse rather than the
newer medium of prose as the vehicle for expressing their thought;
Heraclitus, though he did not compose in any of the formal modes
of Greek verse, adopted a rhythmical and epigrammatic style that is
uniquely his own. Here we have yet another indication of the fluid
character of Greek philosophy in its formative years; for from the sec-
ond half of the fifth century onward, discursive prose would become
the standard medium for writing philosophy, and poetic "truth"
would be treated as different in kind from the probative ambitions of
philosophy. However, "poetics" is an integral feature of our subject
for deeper reasons than the philosopher poets' literary form. Tradi-
tional Greek wisdom was virtually identical to the epic poetry of
Homer and Hesiod. As the staple of primary education, these great
texts, more than any others, influenced and provoked both the style
and the content of early Greek philosophy. If innovative thought was
to take root, Homer and Hesiod had to be dethroned or at least shifted
away from their commanding position, and so we find explicit criti-
cism of them in Xenophanes and Heraclitus. Yet, in numerous ways,
as Most so convincingly shows, Homeric and Hesiodic patterns of
thought as well as expression are still palpable in early Greek phi-
losophy, not to mention such obvious points of contact as the "di-
vine" inspiration invoked by Parmenides and Empedocles, or the ex-
plicit interpretations of poetry essayed by Democritus, Gorgias, and
Protagoras.
The topic chapters distinguish this book's account of early Greek
6
philosophy from many standard treatments of the subject. So too,
to some extent, our treatment of individuals. The Milesian trio,
Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, are the main theme of a
single study - Chapter 3. We have no chapters solely devoted to
Xenophanes or to Diogenes of Apollonia, while Empedocles and
Anaxagoras are discussed together in Chapter 8 from the perspective
of their responses to Parmenides. Zeno is given a chapter to himself,
but Parmenides and Melissus are presented in conjunction. If this
procedure looks partial or idiosyncratic, the chapters on topics and
the index will provide the reader with many additional perspectives
on all the main thinkers. Thus Xenophanes is accorded a good many
pages in Chapters 3, 10, 11, and 16. Empedocles, one of the most
many-sided thinkers, figures prominently in the topic chapters and
Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006
T he scope o f early Gree k philosophy 5
also in Cah pter ,4 on the Pytah gorean tradition . A great advantage
o f this proec dru e, or so ew believe, is its oc mbination o f diarhc onic
ih story, treating o f individau ls, wit h the analysis o f salient teh mes
and metoh dologies to ihw hc teh y oc lletc ively oc ntribtu ed.
oH ew ver, teh re is more than that to the boos'k rationale. eW start,
atf er this introdtcu ion and Cah pter 2 on soru ec s, wit h the beginnings
o f oc smology at iM letsu C( ah pter . ) 3oF r evidenec on this sbu ej tc ,
ew are almost entirely dependent on the tradition o f interpretation
initiated by rA istotle and ehT oprh astsu . ahW tever ew maek o f that
tradition, teh re is no euq stion that it imports some anarhc onism
7
and misrepresentatio nIn . addition, it ah s eh lped to promote the
vie w that early rG ee k pih losopeh rs in general ew re predominantly,
i f not elcx su ively, oc smologists, ohw se ih c e f euq stions ew re abotu
8
the origins and material prinic ples o f the ow rld. Cosmologists, in-
deed, most o f them ew re i f ew eex mpt the sopih sts . tu B soh lu d the
sopih sts be etx rdu ed rf om the ransk o f early rG ee k pih losopeh rs be-
9
ac su e teh y did not engage, to any great etx ent, in oc smolo gpA ya? rt
rf om the inappropriateness o f ansew ring yes to that euq stion, iden-
tiyf ing early rG ee k pih losopyh as predominantly oc smology ah s ah d
the nu of rtnu ate eef f tc o f maik ng its oc ntribtu ions to epistemology,
etih sc , and oteh r topisc seem anic llary and pernuf tc ory . ahT t mis-
oc nec ption is no longer so entrenehc d, btu it ah s ah rdly disappeared.
ehT reof re, one o f the aims o f this boo k is to soh w oh w m hcu teh se
early thinkers oc ntribtu ed not only to oc smology but also to oteh r
topisc that ow lu d beoc me part o f the main agenda o f pih losopyh .
TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF EARLY
GREEK PHILOSOPHY
suhT af r I ah ve rerf ained rf om ac lling the early rG ee k pih losopeh rs
by the af miliar term Presorc atisc . ehT ow rd if rst beac me ruc rent
in nE glis h atf er the eG rman sohc lar eH rmann iD els nearly a nuh -
dred years ago su ed it of r the title o f ih s great oc lletc ion o f evidenec
on early rG ee k pih losopyh , Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (The
10
fragments of the Presocratics). iS nec teh n, it ah s beoc me standard
terminology . ohT se ohw if rst enoc nu ter the ow rd probably spu pose
that it reef rs simply to tih nek rs ohw ew re rhc onologiac lly prior to
oS rc ates, and that is broadly true of r the if gru es in iD els' if rst volmu e,
7
ohw range rf om the mytih ac l Orpeh su to "the Pytah gorean sohc ol/
Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006
6 YLRA E K E E R G PH I LOSOPHY
But in Diels' own usage, Presocratic is more than a chronological
marker. As his younger collaborator Walther Kranz explained, the
second volume of their collection includes "many contemporaries
of Socrates, and indeed some who outlived him. Even so the book
is a unity" because in it "a philosophy speaks which has not passed
through the intellectual schools of Socrates (and Plato) - not just the
11
Presocratic but also the non-Socratic early philosophy."
This comment is less innocent of assumptions than it may seem
to be. What is especially telling is that Kranz puts Plato's name in
a parenthesis. In fact, of course, Plato's writings are our principal
source for determining Socrates' unwritten philosophy and for dis-
tinguishing it from that of his contemporaries, including especially
the sophists. Most of what we can learn about the sophists, apart
from the surviving work of Gorgias, stems from Plato, and nothing
mattered more to Plato than defending Socrates from the widespread
belief that he was, to many intents and purposes, a sophist. Plato,
then, is far from being an unbiased witness to the distinctiveness of
Socrates' philosophy. Certainly, he is the best we have, and unques-
tionably Socrates, in his interrogative methodology, his search for
definitions of moral concepts, his self-examined life, and in a great
deal else was a massively original figure. However, Diels and Kranz
were writing at a time when scholars supposed that they knew much
more about the historical Socrates than many experts are confident
of knowing today.
We can be confident that the historical Socrates was much more
like his namesake in Plato's Apology and Crito than the character
"Socrates," investigator of nature and sophist, who is travestied in
Aristophanes' raucous comedy, The Clouds. I am not suggesting that
Presocratic is a term that should be totally abandoned; even if that
were desirable, it would not be practicable. Given the sources at our
disposal and Socrates' remarkable afterlife, it would be irresponsible
to treat him simply as one among other thinkers of the fifth century
B.C. He must be viewed in association with Plato, and hence he is
scarcely discussed in this book (but see Chapters 14-15). Still, that
requirement does not license us to regard even Plato's Socrates as a
figure so seminal that those he influenced were quite discontinuous
with those who missed his impact.
By representing the early Greek philosophers as conceptually
or methodologically Presocratic, we have tended to overlook or
Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006
T he scope o f early Gree k philosophy 7
marginalise their interest in s hc u topisc as I ah ve already mentioned,
inlc du ing etih sc , psyohc logy, teh ology, and epistemology . eB ac su e
Plato never mentions eD morc itsu , it is easy to of rget that eD morc i-
21
tus aw s oS rc ates ' oc ntemporary. eY t, teh re are striik ng aif nities
betew en Democritus ' moral psyohc logy and ideas voiec d by Platos'
31
oS rc ates. rW iters o f later antiiuq ty, ohw rc edit oS rc ates wit h single-
ah ndedly originating pih losopih ac l etih sc , ew re too ek en on iden-
tiyf ing if" rst disoc verers ". aF r rf om nu dertuc ting oS rc ates ' signiif -
ac nec , ew ih glh igth it ehw n ew ankc olw edge teh etih ac l dimensions
o f eX nopah nes or eH ralc itsu , or indiac te the interests eh sah red iw t,h
and dobu tless debated iw t,h the sopih sts . ehT Presorc ati c label is
also misleading beac su e o f its generality . aV geu toh gu h it is, it sgu -
gests that all the early rG ee k pih losopeh rs are easily identiif able as
a gropu , and ih c elf y so by teh ir nonoS- rc ati c ef atru es . nI that aw y,
the term oc nec als the lf iu dity and diversity I ah ve already empah -
siez d . Presorc ati c also tends to obsruc e Platos' dialetc iac l relation
to ih s oteh r predeec ssors, espeic ally the Pytah goreans, lE eatisc , and
eH ralc itsu : a relation that taek s on inrc easing importanec in Platos'
later dialogeu s ehw re eh replaec s oS rc ates iw t h the lE eati c and
tA eh nian s" trangers " and wit h iT maesu .
Neither in antiiuq ty nor sbu seeuq ntly ah s nu animity reigned over
the soc pe, bonu daries, and sbu divisions o f early rG ee k pih losopyh .
rA istotle and ehT oprh astsu , as aJ ap aM nsef ld epx lains in the netx
ahc pter, ew re ih c elf y interested in lc assiyf ing the opinions o f teh ir
predeec ssors on topisc shc u as the nmu ber and identity o f the ow rlds'
prinic ples, the solu , and sense perec ption . lA l o f teh se ef ll nu der teh
Peripateti c oc nec pt o f "nature, " so teh y ac lled the proponents of
14
teh se viesw iniuq rers into natru e (physikoi or physiologoi). oS me-
times rA istotle oc mments on teh ir relative rh c onology, btu ehw teh r
eh does so, or ohw eh inlc du es within a given oc ntetx , depends on
ih s vie w o f their relevanec to ih s topi .c nI ih s treatment o f ac" su es,"
eh maek s a lc ear brea k betew en Plato and toh se ohw preec ded ih m,
inlc du ing Parmenides and the Pytah goreans, and eh re b( tu only eh re)
eh af mosu ly empah siez s oS rc ates ' oc nec ntration on etih sc to teh e- x
51
lc su ion o f any iniuq ry into "nature as a ohw le". nI ih s treatment of
p" rinic ples" [Physics ,) I rA istotle dissuc ses the early oI nian oc smolo-
gists, eH ralc itsu , mE pedolc es, nA aax goras, Parmenides, and eM lis-
ssu and brielf y alldu es to Plato . nI boo k I o f ih s ow r k On the soul,
ih s dissuc sion o f ih s predeec ssors is synrhc oni,c independent o f any
Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006
8 YLR A E K E E R G PH I LOSOPHY
attempts to define periods of thought, and treats Plato alongside
earlier philosophers (as does Theophrastus in his work On the senses).
Aristotle nowhere calls Protagoras a sophist, and after he has argued
against Protagoras' "man measure" doctrine (Metaph. IV.5), he likens
its rationale to statements by Anaxagoras, Democritus, and others.
Aristotle has an implicit concept of early Greek philosophy, but
16
it is more pre-Platonic than pre-Socratic. Subsequent authors of
philosophical "successions" and lives, writing in Hellenistic times,
tended to draw a line under Socrates in order to present everything
that came after him as a series of Socratic schools specializing in
17
ethics. Yet, Socrates himself could also be presented as the last
18
link in a succession that began with Anaximander. For us these
classifications are mainly of antiquarian interest, but they help to
show that the boundaries of this history, though they need to be
drawn, are inevitably imprecise and partly subjective.
The point is not simply methodological. It also affects what we
take as the beginning of early Greek philosophy, and how we interpret
its subsequent history. I say history rather than development, be-
cause the concept of development, which controls Zeller's Hegelian
19
treatment of Greek philosophy, has also been too dominant. Its bio-
logical connotations tend to prejudge the superiority of what comes
later to what precedes, and while there undoubtedly are develop-
7
ments in the sense that Democritus atomism is a response to and (in
our modern eyes) a clear advance on all preceding theories concerning
the foundations of physical reality, Heraclitus and Parmenides, for
instance, deserve scrutiny and provoke thought entirely for their own
sake, however we assess them in relation to subsequent philosophy.
As regards the beginning, this book follows the convention, au-
thorized by Aristotle, of making Thales of Miletus the pioneer, and
no individual claimant with a better title will ever be suggested.
Yet Aristotle, to his credit, observes that "one could suspect" that
the epic poet Hesiod has adumbrated his own idea of an "efficient
cause" (Metaph. 1.4 98^23). In certain contexts, Aristotle is quite
prepared to find philosophical thoughts in figures prior to Thales.
And was Thales or Anaximander the first Ionian philosopher?
Diogenes Laertius, writing around A.D. 200, classifies Thales as one
of the seven wise men (sophoi), but he also makes him the teacher of
Anaximander, whom he credits with originating Ionian philosophy
(1.13).
Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006
T he scope o f early Gree k philosophy 9
ehT n teh re is the intrigiu ng btu obsruc e if gru e o f Peh reyc des, the
if rst, aoc rding to some very lat reeports t,o tea hc the immortality of
20
the solu . su S piic on abotu this is natru al ehw n one read tshat Peh re-
yc des aw s the teaehc r o f Pytah goras . D ( . L ibid,) . and Peh reyc des too
is psu eh d bakc by iD ogenes into the ransk o f iw" se men " prior to pih -
losopyh . ehT euq stion o f ehw teh r to inlc du e eH siod and Peh reyc des
in the ih story o f early rG ee k pih losopyh is su au lly ansew red eiteh r
21
negatively or by treating them as of" rernu ners". One suj tiif ac tion
of r that proec dru e iw ll empah siez the dief f renec betew en the mytho-
logical oc smogonies o f eH siod and Peh reyc des and the early oI nian
oc smologists ' reef renec to observable reglu arities t hadto not depend
pu on the arbitrary iw ll o f divinities . ehT point is ew ll taek n, btu it
iw ll ah rdly stand as a deif ning ahc ratc eristi c o f early rG ee k pih los-
opyh in general . Neither Parmenides nor mE pedolc es n( or Plato, of r
that matter ) disavosw all su e o f mytoh logy, and teh ology is an im-
portant element in the thinking o f eX nopah nes and eH ralc itsu s( ee
Cah pters 01 and 61 . )
f I ahT les or Pytah goras or eX nopah nes ah d been isolated if gru es, to
ohw m their oc ntemporaries and the netx generation mad neo signiif -
ac nt and epx liic t responses, teh re ow lu d be little reason of r treating
them as the beginnings o f pih losopyh as distintc rf om the oc ntin-u
ation o f iw" sdom " already represented by the liek s o f eH siod and
Peh reyc des . ahW t partiluc arly distingiu seh s the of rmer gropu rf om
the latter is a pair o f very signiif ac nt af tc s . iF rst, ahT les, ehw teh r
or not eh "taught " nA aix mander, aw s plainly perec ived as inlf eu n-c
ing the more ambitiosu oc smologies o f ih s ef llo w iM lesians, nA a- x
imander and nA aix menes . eH letf some ik nd o f intelletc au l legayc
ihw hc oc lu d be dranw pu on, improved, and rc itiic ez d . eS oc nd, by
aronu d 05 0 C. B . eH ralc itsu of rec lu f ly dief rentiates ih s onw toh gu th
rf om the p" olymatyh " o f bot h eH siod and trh ee oteh rs - Pytah goras,
eX nopah nes, and eH ac taesu K D (22 04 B . )
ihT s auq rtet o f names is most revealing . eH ralc itsu oc pu les the
revered poet eH siod wit h trh ee reec nt oc ntenders of r iw" sdom ". oT
Pytah goras and eX nopah nes eh adds the iM lesian geograpeh r and
rhc onilc er eH ac taesu . eW oc lu d as k of r no better evidenec tah n tih s
of r a partiic pants' perspetc ive on rG ee k pih losopyh in its of rmative
stage . eH ralc itsu seesk to distanec ih msel f bot h rf om anic ent a-u
thorities eH ( siod ) and rf om a group o f near oc ntemporar if ygru es. e W
soh lu d assmu e that eh ohc se this oc nstellation iuq te deliberately.
Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006
OI YLR A E K E E R G PH I LOSOPHY
rhT ee o f them stand of r ne,w ow lu db- e atu oh rities, representatives
o f an enterprise in ihw hc eh too is engaged, btu ihw h c eh iw ll eex tuc e
af r more eef tc ively . iS gniif ac ntly, oh ew ver, eH ralc itsu is so lc ose to
the beginnings o f the tradition eh iw ll eh lp to sah pe that eh attaskc
eH siod in the same sentenec that pillories eX nopah nes, Pytah goras,
and eH ac taesu .
Competition over iw sdom and sik ll ah d long been ende minic
rG ee k culture . Poets as ew ll as atlh etes vied wit h and ew re epx etc ed
to vie wit h one anoteh r . ahW t is ne w in eH ralc itsu a( nd ew see it
also in eX nopah nes ) is the sbu ej tc of r oc mpetition . eX nopah nes, a- c
oc rding to the better oc nstrau l o f an ambigou su sentenec , desrc ibes
7 22
ih msel f as talik ng abotu a" ll tih ngs' K D ( 21 ,) 4 3 B and eH ralc itsu ,
rigth at the beginning o f ih s boo,k lc aims that all tih ngs ah ppen in
aoc rdanec wit h the aoc nu t (logos) that eh gives K D ( 22 iB . ) iW tih n
the same oc ntetx , eH ralc itsu desrc ibes ih msel f as d" istingiu sih ng
ea hc tih ng aoc rding to its nature" (physis). ehT i" niuq ry into na-
ture" is an apt desrc iption o f early rG ee k pih losopyh , - it aw s rA isto-
tles' epx ression, as ew ah ve seen, and teh re is no dobu t that some
early rG ee k pih losopeh rs, ehw teh r or not teh y su ed the ow rd, pio-
neered s hcu oc nnotations of natru e as obej tc ivity, teh aw y tih ngs
are ,the basi c structure o f tih ngs, reality as distintc rf om appearanec
or oc nvention . tS ill, to say all this is to muj p aeh ad someahw t . oM re
authenti c of r grasping ahw t eX nopah nes and eH ralc itsu too k teh m-
selves to be nu dertaik ng ma bye the of rmlu ation, g" iving an aoc nu t
o f all things/'
GIV I N G N A ACCOUNT O F L L A TH I N G S
eW soh lu d taek this epx ression in a auq sit- enhc iac l aw y. ehT proej tc
is not to tal k abotu or epx lain literally everytih ng, btu rateh r to give
a nu iversalist aoc nu t, to soh w ahw t the "all " or the nu iverse is liek ,
23
to take everytih ng - the ow rld as a ohw le - as the sbu ej tc o f iniuq ry.
eW ac n no w see yhw eH ralc itsu ohc se the of ru members o f ih s dis-
missed auq rtet : eX nopah nes probably proef ssed a dissuc sion o f all
tih ngs, - eH ac taesu o f iM letsu ah d made a map o f the eart,h and eh
also rw ote a ow r k traic ng af milies ba kc to teh ir mytoh logiac l origins;
eH siods' Theogony is nu iversalist in its aim to inlc du e the main ef a-
tru es o f the visible ow rld and also nmu erosu a" bstratc " tih ngs shc u
as love, strief , rf iendsih p, and deec it, within teh sehc me o f divine
Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006