Ancient Philosophy: The Pre-Socratics

Aristotle on Ancient Mythology

The ancient myths were similar to philosophy in that they began with wonder, and they were seeking to
explain the origin of things. The difference between the two is not the questions they ask, but the method
with which they go about answering them. They differ only methodologically. Philosophy is the language
of proof and demonstration, and it proceeds via argumentation. The myths are useful to the politicians
ruling the people. Aristotle says that the myths are hints and echoes of ages of philosophy that have
passed: “relics of an ancient treasure.” Overall, he does not find what is left over to be of much value,
except for certain inspired utterances, such as asserting that the first substances are gods.

Two primary mythologists were Orpheus and Hesiod. The mythologists gave accounts of origins by
telling stories. Sources on Orpheus claim him as the first theologian. It is reported that he said that water
was the beginning of the whole; from water came mud, and from both of them came a serpent called
Heracles (Time). The serpent laid an egg that split in two: Earth and Heaven. The uniting of Heaven and
Earth formed the female Fates and the male Titans. Hesiod as well attempts to give an account of the
stars and the heavens.

Milesians

Miletus was a city in Asia Minor, or what is now modern day Turkey. The three most famous Milesian
philosophers were Thales, Anaximenes, and Anaximander. Thales maintained that all things are and
come to be in water. Anaximenes said the original and substantial element was air. Anaximander claimed
that apeiron, or, the indefinite, is the original material of all existing things. The apeiron has no
ontological character of its own. Why is it the source? If everything is water, then why is there fire? Any
definite thing excludes its opposite, and so apeiron was hypothesized as the source of the great plurality
we see in the world. One can see then a kind of philosophical mindset developing regarding the search for
origins.

Pythagoreans

The Pythagoreans maintained that there was something numerical built in to reality; everything is built of
numbers and the principles of mathematics are the principles of all things. They think of the numbers as
elements. For them, the study of numbers was the study of gods. They were heavily influenced by
Orphism. They emphasize the body/soul distinction (matter/divinity as Orpheus calls it), and they see the
body as a kind of prison. The divine in us is what recognizes numbers in the world.

The One is the principle of all numbers, the number by which all numbers are measured. The two is the
unlimited, requiring completeness or perfection. Odd is the principle of form, completion, while even is
the principle of incompleteness. They understood everything in terms of this dichotomy. Even stands for
evil, imperfection, left, unlimited, plurality; odd for good, perfection, male, right, limited, one. Every
number is a unique species and has properties unto itself.

The Pythagorean theorem became a scandal to the school because they discovered that there are ratios in
continuous quantity that cannot be expressed in terms of discrete quantity. There are, in other words,
realities that defy an explanation according to numbers; there are non-numeric realities (The way they
understood the meaning of number was as an answer to the question “How many?”).
Almaceon of Croton thought that men differed from the animals in that they had understanding; and
differed from the gods in that they lacked certainty. Quantity plays a major role in his explanation of
things: health, for example, is a harmony of parts. Harmonious mixtures are numerical/proportional.

Philolaus of Tarentum maintained that the limiting, the limited, and the non-limited were the stuff out of
which all things are made. The sphere, he says, is everything, and there are five bodies corresponding to
the five Platonic solids (figures that can be inscribed within a sphere). 1: 4 sides, all triangles; 2: 6 sides,
all squares; 3: 8 sides, all triangles; 12 sides all hexagons; 5: 20 sides all triangles. He also spoke of the
soul trapped in the body and the need to free one’s soul from this prison.

Archytas was also from Tarentum. He argued for correlations between numbers and the physical world.
Whole numbers are what we recognize in reality. Astronomy is applied geometry, and arithmetic is
applied music (This is a list of the quadrivium). He argues for the superiority of mathematics; it has an
excellent view of the nature of the whole and consequently an excellent view of all separate things. He
even uses math in ethics; he possesses a kind of hedonistic cost/benefit consequentialist utilitarianism.
Ethics is based on reckoning (thinking about consequences).

Milesian monism says there is one kind of stuff; Eleaticism is more extreme: Being is one in number, not
in kind. It is continuous, and unchangeable. One implication of Eleaticism is solipsism, along with
epistemological skepticism.

Eleatics

The Eleatics were from Elea, Italy, near the Mediterranean Sea. This school is unified by their belief that
all that exists is the One.” Eleaticism is the belief that there is one singular entity and no plurality. The
world is not a numerical but a specific unity (not of number but of kind; the difference between saying “it
is one” and “there is one”). There is but one being in the universe.

Xenophanes of Colophon believed that the gods were simply creations of men. He is interested in the gods;
he simply doubts the stories about them. He sought a non-mythical way to account for the origin of
things. He is operating in the speculative realm. In his view that a species creates gods in accordance
with their own physical appearance one can see hints of this in Feuerbach’s critique of religion. He
believed that all there is is the One; the whole is one thing.

Parmenides maintained that Being exists and non-being does not exist. There is no way to talk about non-
Being. The Way of Truth is to talk about what is, and the Way of Opinion is to attempt to speak about that
which is not. For him, thought and reality are co-extensive; he jumps to reality through the nature of
human thought. Eleaticism also denies the possibility of changes. If something changes, then it must
become somehow other than being. But then it would become being or non-being and neither of those is
possible. His argumentation is based on pure reasons, on tautologies and contradictions. His is an early
instance of rationalism warring against the perplexities of the empirical world and the variety of ordinary
experience that supposedly leads us astray.

Melissus of Samos argues in support of Parmenides and argues that being has to be infinite. “As Being is
always, so also must its size be infinite.” If being were finite, what would limit it or be outside it? If
infinite, it would lack completion. He is a skeptic as well: our senses often deceive us. His epistemological
skepticism derives from certain rationalistic ontological commitments. There is a foreshadowing of
atomism in his thought: he says that if things were many, then they would have to be of the same kind
that the One is. If there is more than the one, then it must possess the same properties. Atomism in a
sense is a growth out of Eleaticism.
Zeno of Elea was a proponent of Parmenides and used paradoxes to argue in favor of the denial of change.
Movement is a paradox. If one divides a line in 2 continuously, the denominator increases towards
infinity. Movement is an infinite process: you can never get where you are going and you can never leave
where you are.

Pluralists

The Pluralists, in contrast to the eleatics, posit that there is more than a single principle, and even more
than one kind of principle. Earlier philosophers never dealt with how things come about in the first place;
they dealt with material causes as opposed to formal causes.

Empedocles of Acragas (Sicily) said that there were essentially four elements in the universe. Change is
brought about by other principles: Love/Hatred, Friendship/Strife. The only things that exist are the
elements along with love and strife. Their function in nature is to join and separate. Love brings things
together, and hatred tears them apart. Any mixture is the result of chaos; we are the result of strife.
There is no substance, no substantial change, only rearrangement. Death and birth are mere names. The
causes combine the elements together by chance. At a certain point, he gives a recipe for earth, and a
recipe for bones; here we can see the beginnings of a kind of atomic notation. His notion of proportion is
still with us today. He also believes the soul is clothed by the flesh, the unfamiliar tonic of the flesh. They
are separate, antithetical, and, in a way, antagonistic.

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae (Asia Minor) thought that in everything there must be everything. There are
an infinite number of things (He is an infinite substance pluralist, both in nature and in kind; infinite in
number and in smallness). One can never get to a part of matter that cannot be divided into parts. So
what is the infinitely small thing? Matter is infinitely divisible down to the level of points. Extension is
not discrete but continuous. Every substance is an element in every other thing. Not ever reality, but
every type of reality. The infinitely small has not dimension; it is not a quantity but the limit of a quantity.
Why does he say everything is in everything? It is a way to explain apparent coming-into-being. It is a
way to avoid the nominalism of Empedocles. Example: in the changing of the leaves you see something
that was there but hidden. Nothing new comes into existence and nothing passes away. Any particular
bit of matter could become anything else over time.

His principle of change is what he calls Nous. It is the power in nature that assures that change occurs in
an orderly fashion. He is unique in thinking that nature is under the direction of a Mind. For him, Mind is
pure and uncontaminated. If Mind were not pure, it would be unable to govern the universe. Aristotle
called him a sober man in a room full of drunkards.

Leucippus of Abdera (Macedonia) was an atomist. The word “atom” means something that cannot be cut
or divided. Contra Anaxagoras, he thinks that there is an individual part. Contra Empedocles he thinks
that nothing happens at random but that everything happens out of necessity. Chance, mind, necessity
are the three great principles. Aristotle writes about Leucippus, saying that the full and the empty are his
elements. There must be a void equally real to the atoms. Otherwise, one can’t explain nature. He has a
reductionism about nature. Shape, then order, then position. Color then is the shape, order, and position
of atoms; it is entirely reducible to that. Everything that exists consists of atoms and their arrangement in
the void, giving them the properties they exhibit. The atoms themselves are the agent causes of
movement; there exists an eternity of movement.

Historically, atomists were aware of the problem of determinism and ethical normativity. We can see this
in the writings of Democritus, in his Gnomae, or ethical sayings. He is broadly hedonistic; pleasure is the
criterion, the measure of our action. He says virtue has to do with desires and not acts. Virtue consists
not in avoiding wrongdoing but in having no wish to do so. The cause of error is ignorance of the better.
The wrongdoer is more unfortunate than the man wronged.
Democritus also presents a mathematical paradox that shows the problems of infinitely divisible
continuous quantities. If you cut a cone, the surfaces should be equal, but that would turn the cone into a
cylinder. A cone, therefore, must be a series of discrete circles. In other words, composed of atoms.
Discrete means that there is a smallest quantity that cannot be divided. He also believes that the void is as
real as atoms. He disagrees with eleatic monism.

Sophists

The word sophist comes from the Greek word for wisdom. The sophists were a group of philosophers
who taught for money, who made their living through their knowledge.

Protagoras of Abdera is famous for his saying, “Man is the measure of all things; of things that are, that
they are, and of things that are not, that they are not.” He is a subjectivist; we determine the truth, and in
turn things do not determine truth. He also an agnostic regarding the nature of the gods and even
whether they exist. He held that there are two contradictory arguments for everything.

One of the most famous sophists was Gorgias of Leontini (Sicily). He argues using modus tollens,
conditional reasoning. If it exists it cannot be known. If it can be known it cannot be expressed, that is, it
cannot be taught. All that is left, then, is persuasion.

Finally, Prodicus of Ceos held that sophistry is midway between philosophy and politics (6).

Heraclitus

He is unique among the pre-Socratics for holding that change is constant, and he did not posit a
permanent reality or any principle of permanence for the universe. Since everything is different from
moment to moment, any kind of knowledge is impossible. He speaks of the Logos as the way that reason
can understand. How do we reconcile these two positions?