What books should I read to learn about the Pre-Socratic philosophers and their ideas?
Thanks in advance!
Hello All,
I'm considering purchasing a complete collection of all Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, from the fragments of the Pre-Socratics, all the way to Boethius. With that in mind, this is my current list of books I think would cover just about everything there is to read:
Early Period
Early Greek Philosophy (Penguin Classics)
Fragments by Heraclitus (Penguin Classics)
The Greek Sophists (Penguin Classics)
On the other hand, there's also an Oxford edition called "The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists," but I suspect from the page length that it would not contain everything in these first three books? If anybody knows otherwise, please let me know.
Golden Age
Plato: Complete Works (John M. Cooper)
Complete Works of Aristotle, Revised Oxford Edition Vol. 1 (Jonathan Barnes)
Complete Works of Aristotle, Revised Oxford Edition Vol. 2 (Jonathan Barnes)
The Art of Happiness (Epicurus)
If anybody is aware, how good are these complete editions? Does it really contain everything in a good format with good translations? I'm willing to shell out to get better editions if need be, Penguin divides both Plato and Aristotle into around 5 books each, so I have no idea if anything is sacrificed here.
Later Philosophy
On the Nature of the Universe by Lucretius (Penguin Classics)
Letters from a Stoic by Seneca (Penguin Classics)
Dialogues and Letters by Seneca (Penguin Classics)
Discourses, Fragments, Handbook by Epictetus (Oxford)
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (Gregory Hays)
Plotinus: The Enneads (Lloyd P. Gerson)
The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius (Penguin Classics)
Anybody that I'm missing from this list? Can I really get the entirety of Greek and Roman philosophy in just 14 books?
Why do people say the Perpetuum mobile machines (first generation) that were built don't work? They do work as intended and people got what they built (but not what they imagined I guess)
endless motion = standstill
https://i.ibb.co/4J53Ytf/Missing-Philoosopher.png
https://i.ibb.co/X8tJg5k/perpetuum-mobile-der-ersten-art.png
although if we wanna be real they try to create big motion with small motion in the beginning like a snowball effect
but if you understand that the universe is static and endless at the same time you know that the expansion of the universe is stopped by it's own expansion and you also understand that the only way the universe could do this in the first place is by decentralization
a body can only move safely out of itself if it decentralizes, the universe decentralized and that's why it appears static and endless at the same time
to counterbalance the dead motion in those machines one has to create the state of accelerated standstill and the machine has to decentralize to work, I guess or so
So I have an interest in learning about pre Socratic philosophers but searching through google I canโt find anything but fragments. Is there a collection of writings by them? Second hand sources from like students of the philosophers are also of interest to me.
I like to read philosophy for fun and I want to read some pre socratics but their fragment books are expensive. Is there still good material to study even if theyโre incomplete works?
Outline again
- Why study history of philosophy, what is history of philosophy
- Drama before Thought and the mythopoetic
- The (pre-)Socratic revolution (dialectic search for the arche)--THE CRISIS EMERGES with the new types who want to have it all out in a go!
- Thales
- Anaximander
- Anaximenes
- Pythagoras
- Xenophanes
- Hericlitus
- Parmenides
- Zeno
- Anaxagoras
- Empedocles/
- Atomists like Leucippus and Democritus
- Sophists like Protagoras and Gorgias
- Empedocles
- Socrates
- Plato
- Aristotle
- The Catholic Roman Expansion (The not-so-Dark Ages)--Still all footnotes to Plato, on the philosophical side-- but a strange preservation of the mythopoetic.
- Aquinas
- Augustin
- St. John of the Cross
- Anselm
- The Priests
- The Monks
- The Cartesian Revolution -- Problem is Rationalism v. Empiricism (whence comes all our knowledge?)
- Descartes
- Spinoza
- Leibnitz
- Locke
- Berkeley
- Hume
- The Kantian Revolution -- Dissolving the "rationalism v. empiricism" old problem, now interpret this one as objective or subjective phenomena
- Kant
- Fichte
- Hegel
- Schopenhauer
- Nietzsche as judge throughout (rewind time) -- Dissolving pessimism v. optimism of nihilism... Resurrection of the mythopoetic or total reduction to materialism?
- Kierkegaard
- Marx
- Jung
- Henry James
- Peterson
Now, with Homer, we have left taken the first half-step into conscious construction of the stories which shaped our civilizations for tens of thousands of years... the author started to consider not just what the muses impressed upon him as the images to depict, but thoughtful consideration about the effects of the stories and the design of the stories.
With that emerged a new set of thinkers. The philosophers. These arrogant fellows thought that they could JUST have dialogue about what was right and true and get to the profound realities of life without having to wait 1000 years to see if their story remained in tact and the societies built around it were thriving.
This is the first revolution of which we spoke in the beginning.
- The world was ticking along just fine, except not so much
- Socrates starts a new game
- Descartes revolutionizes that ga
I was thinking about Parminedes as an example, and his argument that all reality is one. It sounds similar to Indian philosophy. Was ancient Greek philosophy novel and local in origin, or can it be thought of as a collaboration with the East?
Would you recommend any books or papers on this subject? thanks.
One of the things that has fascinated me is the concept and idea of a โTheory of Everythingโ. T.O.E. is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe (an ultimate explanation of the universe). Whether this is possible to do is being debated heavily today in physics (due to the perceived incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics).
Recently though Iโve been wondering whether some pre-Socratic Ancient Greek philosophers had a T.O.E. The Ancient Greek philosophers (especially pre-Socratic since they were obsessed with understanding the fundamental nature of reality) posed practically all of the most fundamental questions of existence. Everything since then could be considered a set of footnotes and refinements to their work. From Thales and Pythagoras, to Heraclitus and Parmenides, to Empedocles, to Anaximander to Anaxagoras and to Anaximenes etc. A philosophical concept in Ancient Greece that can connect to this deep question and has also fascinated me and that is the idea of the โArcheโ. Arche is a Greek word with primary senses "beginning", "origin" or "source of action", and later "first principle" or "element". The first principle or element corresponds to the "ultimate underlying substance" and "ultimate undemonstrable principle". In the philosophical language of the archaic period (8th to 6th century BC), arche designates the source, origin or root of things that exist (metaphysics/ontology). As Iโve said earlier it was this subject that consumed the pre-Socratic philosophers of Ancient Greece, and, in my opinion, it remains the most significant endeavour of philosophy. It was the philosopher Aristotle who was the first person to foreground the meaning of arche as the element or principle of a thing, which although undemonstrable and intangible in itself, provides the conditions of the possibility of that thing.
So, did some early Greek philosophers really have a theory of everything, or is the idea of a search for the arche, the principle, an Aristotelian construct? Has there been any specific research that has been done previously on this question of mine? If so, I would love to delve deeper into this issue that has fascinated me so much and for such a long period of time. Thanks.
What's the academic view on Peter Kingsley's take on Parmenides and Empedocles?
Is he kind of ignored because he's wrong or because he's just not well known because instead of writing research studies he writes books that are mostly about himself taking deep dives into the above chaps' teachings or Carl Jung etc.
He loves having a moan that academia doesn't take any notice of him, is he playing the victim or justified?
I am reading You Must Change Your Life (Sloterdijk), which is stunningly interesting. (I didn't know what to expect from it, being new to Sloterdijk's work. To me, it is unlike any philosophy books I have read so far). There is a chapter on Heraclitus, "Sleepless in Ephesus," and Sloterdijk cites Heraclitus by number (Fragment 119, and so on) and does not give any title. I have come across several collections of the fragments coming from Pre-Socratic philosophers over the years, none of which I have a clear recollection though. Is there an edition deemed standard? What would be the most recommended collection of Pre-Socratic fragments?
Why is there no history of philosophy or history of thought sources that show history starting from the Proto-Indo Europeans and ending with the Greeks instead of starting with them.
At the very least I would like to see if there is anything connecting Zoroastrianism or the Rig Veda to the Pre-Socratic philosophers or poets.
Hi! I am from India and I started reading Anthony Kenny's The New History of Western Philosophy. I am reading about the pre-Socratic philosophers as of now and it seems that a few things are very similar to what we have in Indian mythology and philosophy. Like, the concept of atomism in Indian philosophy predates Democritus' atomism. Similarly, Pythagoras' theory of metempsychosis sounds similar to the idea of reincarnation of soul that we have in Hinduism. I know that it's entirely possible that two different civilizations might have come up with these ideas on their own but do we have any recorded evidence where the philosophers of these civilizations ever interacted with each other?
Hi!
I want to start reading some pre socratics seriously, starting with Parmenides. What are the best books to go to, except for the original fragments of course. I looked at Parmenides and the Way of Truth by Richard G Geldard, The World of Parmenides by Karl Popper, and The presocratic philosophers by Kirk, Raven and Schofield are they any good? Are there better ones to start with?
I'm looking to read fragments from pre-socratic philosophers. Someone mentioned getting "The Art and Thought of Heraclitus" by Charles Kahn. I'm looking for similar books for Thales and other pre-socratic philosophers. Since Thales was first, I thought it would be good to read his fragments. I want to get a thorough understanding of each of pre-socratic philosopher. (Anaximander is someone I find extremely interesting too. I'll probably read his work a bit later.) Please let me know which book to start off with. Thank you!
I plan on reading some Plato and have already pre-emptively picked up the complete works by cooper, i have also read mythology by Hamilton, along with the Iliad and odyssey in preparation and for full understanding.
I have seen three main recommendations:
1 The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists by Robert Waterfield
2.The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts by Kirk, Raven, and Schofield
- he Texts of Early Greek Philosophy: The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics by Graham
I was wondering if anyone had any experience with one or all three of these texts and which one you all would recommend for someone looking to get into socratic and platonic philosophy as a beginner, thanks in advance for the help!
And if you read German, how long would it take in comparison to learning to read German?
I am interested in reading any pre-socratic texts that exist. I know that we only have fragments of some and only quotations of others referenced in socratic writings, but I would like to find as much of the original content as I can. There is a list of primary sources on this Stanford site: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/ and I am unsure if they are the best, or just the ones that were used there. I have done several google searches for primary sources, and have read a few textbook overviews of philosophy so I am not new and know that this is the nitty gritty hard to read stuff, but I would like to get more down to the crunch. Read more primary resources. Any help in finding good translations would be appreciated. I am also not adverse to looking at early eastern philosophers as well.
Hello everyone,
I'm currently doing a (relatively low level) philosophy cursus online, and for it I have to write several essays. One of the essay questions I have to write something about is "What is the importance for the pre-socratic philosophers on western philosophy?" (i dont know if pre-socratic philosophers is the english term for it, but theyre the philosophers that came before socrates.)
I wrote an essay on it, but it wasnt sufficent, and the notes said that i should try and relate it more to the current day. I don't know how to even start to attempt this. What I did in my orginal essay was relate their philosophy to that of other philosophers that came later, but not ones of modern day. There was also a suggestion to try and relate their philosophy to the corona virus, though that was more a suggestion than a direct suggestion.
The book i got with the cursus is the dutch translation of Donald Palmer's "Looking at Philosophy, The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter"
So, do ya'll have any advice for writing about this? Any helpful suggestions or places to start? I would be willing to link the essay but I did write it in dutch (the cursus im doing is dutch and so am i haha) so i dont know how helpful that would be.
Thanks in advance!
This may just be because of a severe lack of understanding/knowledge on my part, but every one of Descartes' major philosophical contributions seems to have existed in some form among the pre-Socratics. The Pythagoreans recycled the Orphic belief of the reincarnation of souls into different bodies, and created the first known distinction of the mind(soul) and body in philosophy. Xenophanes espoused the ultimate mortality and imperfection of man (albeit in relation to God), thus casting a shadow on the possibility of us ever knowing anything. Parmenides was the first to say that comprehension of something, including ourselves, confirmed its existence (by virtue of non-existence being impossible) "For to be aware and to be are the same." And, Democritus elaborated on "bastard" knowledge which came from our senses and faculties (vision, smell, hearing, taste, etc). Although done to affirm the deceptive nature of what we observe in relation to what is actually the movement of atoms, it is still very similar to Descartes' doubt in our senses/observations. Democritus even wrote on "legitimate" knowledge which could come to us through rationalization
>The second sort of knowledge, the "legitimate" one, can be achieved through the intellect, in other words, all the sense data from the "bastard" must be elaborated through reasoning. In this way one can get away from the false perception of the "bastard" knowledge and grasp the truth through inductive reasoning. After taking into account the sense impressions, one can examine the causes of the appearances, draw conclusions about the laws that govern the appearances, and discover the causality (ฮฑแผฐฯฮนฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮฏฮฑ, aetiologia) by which they are related.
So, why do so many sources and respected philosophers put so much weight on Descartes' ideas? Is there something I'm missing?
Can anyone recommend some helpful books (preferably primary sources) to understand Pre-Socratic philosophy?
One of the things that has fascinated me is the concept and idea of a โTheory of Everythingโ. T.O.E. is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe (an ultimate explanation of the universe). Whether this is possible to do is being debated heavily today in physics (due to the perceived incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics).
Recently though Iโve been wondering whether some pre-Socratic Ancient Greek philosophers had a T.O.E. The Ancient Greek philosophers (especially pre-Socratic since they were obsessed with understanding the fundamental nature of reality) posed practically all of the most fundamental questions of existence. Everything since then could be considered a set of footnotes and refinements to their work. From Thales and Pythagoras, to Heraclitus and Parmenides, to Empedocles, to Anaximander to Anaxagoras and to Anaximenes etc. A philosophical concept in Ancient Greece that can connect to this deep question and has also fascinated me and that is the idea of the โArcheโ. Arche is a Greek word with primary senses "beginning", "origin" or "source of action", and later "first principle" or "element". The first principle or element corresponds to the "ultimate underlying substance" and "ultimate undemonstrable principle". In the philosophical language of the archaic period (8th to 6th century BC), arche designates the source, origin or root of things that exist (metaphysics/ontology). As Iโve said earlier it was this subject that consumed the pre-Socratic philosophers of Ancient Greece, and, in my opinion, it remains the most significant endeavour of philosophy. It was the philosopher Aristotle who was the first person to foreground the meaning of arche as the element or principle of a thing, which although undemonstrable and intangible in itself, provides the conditions of the possibility of that thing.
So, did some early Greek philosophers really have a theory of everything, or is the idea of a search for the arche, the principle, an Aristotelian construct? Has there been any specific research that has been done previously on this question of mine? If so, I would love to delve deeper into this issue that has fascinated me so much and for such a long period of time. Thanks.
Why is there no history of philosophy or history of thought sources that show history starting from the Proto-Indo Europeans and ending with the Greeks instead of starting with them.
At the very least I would like to see if there is anything connecting Zoroastrianism or the Rig Veda to the Pre-Socratic philosophers or poets.
