Presocratic Philosophy

Η διδακτική αυτή προσέγγιση αφορά στο σχεδιασμό και την υλοποίηση της διδασκαλίας στο πλαίσιο ενός μαθήματος φιλοσοφίας σχετικά με τις θεωρίες της γνώσης στη Β΄ Γενικού Λυκείου,  με  βάση  το διδακτικό  βιβλίο  Αρχές  Φιλοσοφίας  στο  πλαίσιο  του  αναλυτικού προγράμματος.  Πιο  συγκεκριμένα,  θα  προσπαθήσουμε  να  προτείνουμε  τον  εμπλουτισμό του κεφαλαίου 3: Αναζητώντας τη γνώση, ενότητα τρίτη: Θεωρίες για την πηγή της γνώσης, χρησιμοποιώντας  στοιχεία  θεωρίας  της  γνώσης  και  της  αντίληψης  των  Προσωκρατικών.  Στόχος  μας  είναι  να  εμπλουτίσουμε  το  κεφάλαιο  αυτό  με  στοιχεία  προσωκρατικής  φιλοσοφίας ως παλαιότερης χρονολογικά και προϋπάρχουσας εκείνης της Κλασικής εποχής  και των Νεοτέρων χρόνων.

Parmenides is probably the most influential of all Presocratics on the subsequent history of philosophy, yet he has been poorly served by his English translators. They persistently turn his poem into awkward and deadening prose, as if he had written an obscure treatise on logic. By rendering Parmenides’ poetry as poetry, in an English equivalent of its meter, this translation aims to show that his medium is essential to his message — that he is not a would-be analytic logician but a mystical visionary.striving to convey a revelation of ultimate reality.

Special attention in this Newsletter for pythagorean women.                  Sarah B. Pomeroy  interview + CV, Hypatia,  Museum of Pythagoras,
basilica Pitagorica, Conferences , New books, Book reviews, Book chapters, Journal articles, Internet

Parmenides’ philosophy is unique in the history of ideas in Europe, but it has a striking parallel in India, from about the same age. The unchanging Absolute, called ‘Being’ or ‘Existent’; the depreciation of everyday objects as mere ‘names’; and the construction of the empirical world out of elements called ‘forms’ are all found in the first text of the Sadvidyā (Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI. 1-7). Comparing details and taking into consideration other old Indian material this paper tries to prove that convergence of thought or parallel development is out of the question – there must have been actual contact. Also it suggests that the most probable scenario is that Parmenides travelled to India, learned the language and some important philosophical texts, and brought them back to Greece.

With Empedocles, the qualities of a creative religious, mytho-poetic imagination fluent in Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and Parmenides allies itself with a rational mind keenly interested in understanding the natural world.:
The first condition for an understanding of Empedocles is to banish the notion of a gulf between religious beliefs and scientific views. His work is a whole, in which religion, poetry, and philosophy are indissolubly united. His imagination is constructive, gathering elements from every available quarter-Hesiodic and Ionian cosmogony, Parmenidean rationalism, Orphic mysticism, poetic legend, the experience of a physician, a poet’s sensuous response to the sights and sounds of mature, and the fears and hopes of a spirit exiled from heaven for ‘a brief span of life that is not life’- but building all these elements together into a unitary vision of the life of the world and the destiny of the human soul, bound, like the macrocosm, upon the wheel of birth and death (Cornford 122).
To give an idea of how Empedocles articulates the elements of muthos and logos in his system,  eleven fragments have been chosen in an attempt to illustrate the basic aspects of his system with an attention to mythical aspects:

“Friendship in Early Greek Ethics” examines the accounts of friendship (philia) in the early philosophical literature and argues that there is a coherent narrative of philosophical theorizing of friendship prior to Aristotle, one which does not make the Presocratics and Socratics mere pre-Aristotelian. The main treatments of friendship considered in this chapter—namely, those in Empedocles, Democritus, the Sophists, and the Socratics—can be understood as efforts to provide a convincing explanation of what motivates the relation of philia and to isolate the conditions for and key features of this specific form of relation essential to the good life.

Ce volume comporte trois chapitres : le premier décrit les linéaments d'une doctrine archaïque de la « phusis » visant toujours à connaître la « nature » de chaque chose, cet ensemble de caractéristiques qui fonde sa puissance, sa capacité d'agir ; le second décrit une représentation archaïque de l'Univers au moyen du schème de la croissance végétale, reconnu dans l'usage du verbe « phuô » et la poursuit jusqu'à la grande synthèse de la cosmologie archaïque, telle qu'elle s'énonce dans la deuxième partie du poème de Parménide : l'Univers est comme une grande plante qui croît et distribue l'ensemble des « natures » des choses. Le schème de la croissance et celui de la distribution des natures convergent ainsi pour esquisser la première représentation globale d'un tout cosmique organisé. La troisième partie est consacrée au débat qui, dans le deuxième Ve siècle, autour de « l'enquête sur la nature », chez les sophistes et les médecins, accompagne l'apparition d'un tout de plus en plus homogène, mais néanmoins susceptible de plusieurs visages : ainsi celui de l'homogénéité du mode de production de toutes choses ou celui de la distribution des natures de toutes choses. La Nature commence à paraître, oscillant entre une logique génétique et une logique distributive : c'est ainsi que s'accomplit une histoire qui fait progressivement du terme distribué à toutes choses pour décrire leurs puissances respectives le nom du tout organisé où chacune trouve sa place.

"KEYWORDS:
Greek philosophy, analytical philosophy, presocratics, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Heraclitus, atomism, interpretative charity, degrees of existence, true contradictions, J. Barnes, M. Schofield, Charles H. Kahn.
RESUMEN:
Los tres libros abordan problemas importantes de la historia de la filosofía griega a través de la filosofía analítica. Los tres tratan de ofrecer interpretaciones de los presocráticos que eviten atribuirles contradicciones; y los tres fracasan en ese intento hermenéutico, aplicando una caridad interpretativa innecesaria. Y es que es racional reconocer grados de existencia y afirmar que hay contradicciones verdaderas."

This article presents a strategy for introducing Presocratic thought to students in a manner that is both engaging and relevant. The first section addresses students' reactions to the claim that the Presocratics were the first philosophers. The second section considers how the fragmentary state of Presocratic thought does not hinder its comprehension. The third section proposes a classroom exercise for testing the scientific merits of each of the Presocratic theories. The final section proposes the use of a mock trial as a means of applying the materialist approach introduced by the Presocratics to contemporary debates about free will and determinism.

Przedmiot badań prezentowanej książki to soteriologiczny wymiar wczesnej filozofii greckiej, nazywanej tutaj "archeiczną", ze względu na wspólną jej przedstawicielom koncentrację na problematyce arche. Celem było wykazanie zasadności twierdzenia o istnieniu egzystencjalno-soteriologicznego aspektu nauczania wczesnych myślicieli greckich, który uznać należy za istotny składnik uprawianej przez nich filozofii. Rozważania dotyczyły głównie działalności czterech filozofów: Pitagorasa z Samos, Heraklita z Efezu, Parmenidesa z Elei i Empedoklesa z Akragas. W celu wykazania, że w ich przypadku filozofia faktycznie posiada zbawczy cel, zastosowano historyczno-porównawczą metodę badań. W pierwszej części książki zrekonstruowano historyczno-religijny kontekst wypowiedzi filozofów presokratejskich, sugerujących "zbawczy kontekst" ich nauczania. Badaniami objęto okres od epoki neolitu do czasów archaicznej polis. Istotny okazał się zwłaszcza wpływ misteryjnej religijności orfizmu.W drugiej części pracy, warstwa po warstwie, została dokonana rekonstrukcja struktury ideologicznej wzorca domniemanego "systemu soteriologicznego", którego przejawem mogłyby być wypowiedzi presokratyków o zbawczym celu ich nauczania. System ów okazał się filozoficzno-religijnym konglomeratem misteryjnej wrażliwości religijnej oraz filozoficznej idei świata doczesnego jako ekspresji nieśmiertelnego podłoża arche. W ostatnim rozdziale przedstawiono owoc dysertacji: zrekonstruowany "wzorzec" archeicznej drogi do nieśmiertelności oraz zaprezentowano nauczanie Pitagorasa, Heraklita, Parmenidesa i Empedoklesa jako różne warianty jego realizacji. W połączeniu z konkretnymi wypowiedziami tych filozofów, sugerującymi soteriologiczny kontekst ich nauczania, stanowi to wystarczający dowód do poważnego potraktowania problemu soteriologicznego wymiaru wczesnej filozofii greckiej.

Aristotle introduced in the history of the reception of Anaxagoras the term “homoiomerous.” This word refers to substances whose parts are similar to each other and to the whole. Although Aristotle’s explanations can be puzzling, the term “homoiomerous” may explain an authentic aspect of Anaxagoras’ doctrine reflected in the fragments of his work. Perhaps one should find a specific meaning for the term “homoiomerous” in Anaxagoras, somewhat different from the one present in Aristotle. This requires a review of the sense of the two terms involved in it: “homoios” and “moira.” In other words, the following questions should be answered: what realities are named parts and to what whole do they belong? On the other hand, which similarity do they have to each another and to the whole? The author concludes that the parts are “all things,” which resemble each other and the universe as a whole because, according to Anaxagoras, they are all composed of all things.

Ao consideramos o discurso cotidiano ou especializado uma forma de comunicação consciente e ordenada segundo a lógica linguística, precisamos considerar suas motivações e interesses, geralmente, submersos aos códigos de linguagem, embora ajam fortemente na constituição da mensagem discursiva. A "comunicação inconsciente" transportada pelo discurso pode informar muitas vezes mais do que a mensagem denotada das palavras.

The sample pdf includes only the first two sections of the article, which is a selective bibliography with brief comments to every citation (121 items in all). Full access is available by subscription at the Oxford Bibliographies website. Here's the complete table of contents:
Introduction.
General Overviews.
Critical Editions and Commentaries.
Other Editions.
Bibliographies.
Studies.
Handbooks and Sourcebooks.
Collections of Articles.
Major Topics and Debates:
Heraclitus, Some Poets and Other Presocratics.
Language, Style, and Poetics.
Logos and Physis..
Unity of Opposites.
Flux.
Fire, Cosmology, and Cosmogony.
Soul.
Knowledge and Perception.
Ethics and Politics.
Religion and Theology.
Reception.

Heraclitus (535-475 B.C.) was a pre-Socratic philosopher who held unique views on ontology (what things exist) and metaphysics (first principles of things). He is probably best known for his doctrine that everything is in the process of becoming. The Ionian famously declared that you can never step in the same river twice. All is moving. Everything is in flux.

In the ancient world Heraclitus is known for five doctrines: (1) fire is the source of all things; (2) there are periodic episodes of world conflagration; (3) everything is in flux, in constant motion; (4) the opposites are identical; and (5) in consequence of (3) and (4), Heraclitus violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. Modern critics have refuted (1) and (2) and challenged the other doctrines, making Heraclitus a constancy theorist; but other scholars have defended him as a flux theorist holding (3), (4), and (5). I argue that it is possible to combine elements of both views—Heraclitus believes in both constancy and flux—in an interpretation that avoids the logical chaos of point (5). In criticizing his predecessors, Heraclitus opposes not Material Monism but the Generating Substance Theory, which already implies that elemental stuff change into each other. But he recognizes that if that is so, there is no privileged generating substance, only a lawlike sequence of changes. There is a unity of opposites, but not an identity; and flux at the level of elements is balanced by constancy of natural structures, including that of the cosmos itself.  So there is both low-level flux and high-level constancy, and Heraclitus’ paradoxes are resolved without contradiction.

Thales’ and Anaximenes’ argument by analogy should be considered as one of the first incidents of inductive reasoning. The relationship between microcosm (small scale) and macrocosm (cosmic scale) reflects Thales’ hylozoism and mathematical
expertise (ex. measurement of the pyramids and predictions of the eclipses) and Anaximenes’ natural philosophy and cosmological discoveries.

The Philosophy of Parmenides as a system of idealistic monism (immaterialism). The Pythagorean background of Parmenides' metaphysics. The origin of the mistaken positivist interpretation of Parmenides. Plato's date of Parmenides' birth (circa 515 BC) is a literary fiction, Apollodorus' date (c. 544/541 BC) is to be preferred.

The essay focuses on the theme of the essence of philosophy through the short essay by Martin Heidegger What is philosophy? Following the text and reconstructing its argumentation, the nodal passages of speculation are highlighted, from the anti-historiographic attitude, to the origin and historical-conceptual development of the word philosophy, to the experience of wonder connected to the philosophical disposition, to the link between thought and poetry. In conclusion, the essential cues on the essence of philosophy, that the essay gives us, are examined in depth.

Key words: Heidegger, essence of philosophy, thàumazein, philosophical attitude, thought and poetry.

In the National Undergraduate Classical Studies Honorary's biannual publication, Nuntius.  Summer 2014 Issue.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Presocratics-Thematic-Approach-Philosophy/dp/0470655038/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1411509649&sr=8-3&keywords=stamatellos

La discussione sulla storia della civilizzazione umana, sul faticoso cammino che ha compiuto per distinguersi dalle altre specie animali costruendo un mondo fatto a propria misura, è un tema che ha appassionato i greci del V secolo. Tra gli altri anche il celebre mito che Protagora racconta nel dialogo omonimo di Platone può essere legittimamente inserito in questo contesto. Ma a differenza di altri resoconti, come ad esempio quello di Archelao, il racconto di Protagora non pretende di avere valore storico, di ricostruire cioè la storia dell’umanità. Piuttosto, quello che il mito si propone di fare è di sfruttare alcune tematiche tipiche di queste discussioni per presentare alcune situazioni irrealizzabili, capaci però di mostrare la vera natura (politica) dell’essere umano. Un’analisi dettagliata del mito permetterà così di discutere alcuni punti fondamentali del pensiero di Protagora, ricostruendo allo stesso tempo la strategia polemica che Platone ha adottato per confutare il suo avversario.

were the two major founders of "new quantum theory" in the period 1925-1927. Their formulations were very different, and neither of them liked the other's formulation. Heisenberg, in a letter, called Schrödinger's formulation "repulsive," and characterized the physical interpretation as "crap."1 Schrödinger, without obscenity but in print, returned the compliment, saying he was "repelled" by Heisenberg's formulation and that it was "monstrous." 2 The two formulations were later proved to be equivalent. (Some qualifications must be added. Dirac, over three decades later, while recording his version of the equivalence proof to Thomas Kuhn, who was collecting interviews with the founders, claim that in systems with an infinite number of dimensions a term in the exponent did not carry over.)3 Despite their differences, both Heisenberg and Schrödinger were well-aware of the novelties and apparent paradoxes of the new quantum mechanics. complex valued terms, multidimensional character, was novel and counterintuitive. Heisenberg, allying himself with Bohr accepted these features as intrinsic to the subatomic world, while Schrödinger unsuccessfully attempted initially and successfully tried to further retrieve features of classical mechanics and to formulate wave mechanics in a continuous and deterministic form without quantum jumps, in "Are There Quantum Jumps?"4 Because of Schrödinger's continued support of the Law of Continuity and criticism of superposition he did not find the new quantum mechanics as radical a change from classical physics as much as Heisenberg. This may account of Schrödinger's interest not so much in the metaphysics of the Presocratics as was Heisenberg's, but in objectivity and knowledge common to all. But despite their differences in attitude toward the canonical form of the theory, both felt that quantum mechanics upset classical physics required new approaches to understanding different from those of classical particle physics such as atomism of particles. Schrödinger in a chapter titled "The Motives for Returning to Ancient Thought" states that in modern physics "The very foundations are shaken," and that "Quantum theory while extending atomism almost limitlessly, has plunged into a crisis more severe than most people are prepared to admit.5

"Carter's music poses struggles of opposition, for instance in timbre (Double Concerto), space (String Quartet No. 3) or pulse (String Quartet No. 5). His preference for the all-interval tetrachords, 4–Z15 [0, 1, 4, 6] and 4–Z29 [0, 1, 3, 7], is also well known. From these facets of Carter's music, I develop a narrative interpretation of his Petrarch sonnet–inspired solo flute piece, Scrivo in Vento (1991). Specifically, I forge narrative pathways by imagining the two tetrachords as active agents opposed in competition. Previous Scrivo analyses (Capuzzo 2002; Childs 2006) stress continuity by revealing Q-transforms and common-note voice leading between the tetrachords. While acknowledging such features, my analysis emphasises oppositional struggle by tracing the tetrachords as separate entities which cooperate and conflict as they manoeuvre to outdo each other.

The analysis advances three theses: (1) it guides listening to and reading Scrivo in a way which resonates with Carter's concern for the aesthetics of oppositional struggle, his choice of a sonnet as inspiration and his affinity for all-interval tetrachords; (2) it shows that music-analytical detail can be organised into dramatic narratives by (a) projecting dramatic roles onto categories asserted by a formal theory and (b) treating the formal theory's relations metaphorically as actions performed by each role as the musical work unfolds; and (3) it shows how detailed pc-set analysis can support a Heraclitean view of music: a flux of opposing forces seeking and resisting unity."

Bien que les notions de φιλία et δίκη n’apparaissent pas conjointement dans les fragments présocratiques, elles relèvent de champs similaires, qu’il s’agisse de la nécessité cosmique ou d’une forme conditionnelle de nécessité. Mais, tandis que l’amitié cosmique d’Empédocle (la Φιλότης) est conçue comme une force d’unification et d’homogénéisation des contrariétés, le modèle développé par Démocrite des rapports entre amis se fonde sur l’attraction des semblables – contrairement à ce qui pouvait d’abord sembler ressortir des analyses aristotéliciennes. Le concept de justice, initialement relatif aux lois de l’univers et de l’être (avec Anaximandre, Héraclite et Parménide), s’élabore progressivement via la question de la rétribution proportionnelle et de la mesure, mais sans s’élever jusqu’à une dimension vraiment délibérative, puisque le choix se restreint à consentir ou non à la nécessité.

In questo articolo ho cercato di mostrare come in Eraclito non si possa parlare di diritto naturale.  Al contrario, in Gorgia questo è possibile e nell’Epitaffio, pur mantenendo un lessico generico e per certi versi prossimo a quello eracliteo, Gorgia fonda la legge sulla rettitudine della ragione e dunque sul procedere logico dei ragionamenti. Il sofista presenta, così, una specifica istanza di diritto naturale. Nel caso di Eraclito, inoltre, il tentativo di individuare il diritto naturale e di voler strettamente riconoscerne la presunta specificità può addirittura risultare penalizzante: infatti, volendo indagare il nesso tra legge cosmica e legge umana, si rischia di perdere di vista la grande portata del riconoscimento che il filosofo fa proprio della legge in quanto comune.

In the analysis of Anaxagoras' physics in view of the relation between his teachings on multitude and heterogeneity, two central questions emerge: 1) How can the structure of the universe considered purely mereo-topologically help us explain that at the first cosmic stage no qualitative difference is manifest in spite of the fact that the entire qualitative heterogeneity is supposedly already present there? 2) How can heterogeneity become manifest at the second stage, resulting from the noûs intervention, if according to fragment B 6 such a possibility requires the existence of "the smallest", while according to the general principle stated in fragment B 3 there is not "the smallest" but always only "a smaller"? This paper showcases the perplexity of these two questions but deals only with the former. The answer follows from Anaxagoras' being a thoroughgoing infinitist in the way in which no Greek physicist was: the principle of space isotropy operative in geometry is extended to physics as well. So any two parts of the original mixture are similar to each other not only in view of the smaller-larger relation but also because each contains everything that the other one contains. This in effect means that at the stage of maximal possible heterogeneity each part of any part contains infinitely many heterogeneous parts of any kind whatsoever. So, neither can there be homogeneous parts in view of any qualitative property, nor can there be predominance in quantity of parts of any kind that would make some property manifest.

ANAXAGOREAN NOUS AND ΙTS ΑNALOGΙES
ΙN ORPHΙC COSMOLOGY
Ι. Ιntroduction. The Anaxagorean Thesis on Norrs. Anaxagoras argues that matter initially consisted of a mixture of inνisible materials, infinite in size and number. These materials werΘ the seed of all things; of al1 the natural things (animals and humans), of the various forces, and of the natural substances that were going to be produced. These sperms
were condensed to a united and solid mass, which preexisted i.e. before the formation of the cosmos. Everything that exists today is rooted in that preexisting mass, since, according to
Anaxagoras and Ρarmenid, <nothing iS born and nothing is Ιost>. The sperms ofthis mass, the sperms of all things οontain within themselγes the pοιentiαl (Εν δυναμει) of all material substances of the cosmos, because, <everything contains paπ of everything>. Αristotle later
named these speΙΙns as homoeomeri 6μoιoμερη = similar kinds), implying that they are fundamental, consisting of similar parts. This is the physical unit from which cosmogony started. Ιn a few things, however, Αnaxagoras introduces another factor; the mind = noιιs=Nous is a signifiοant factor in the cosmologic theory of Anaxagoras. Ιt is something ιvith self_sufficiency and independence, unmixed, thin and pure, omniscient and goveming all beings (οντα). Ιt acts upon eνerything and proνides the moving power. Ιt is responsible for the separation of things in cosmos, their hierarchy and order. But, aΙthough it penetrates (gets through) everything' does not coexist with everything' but onΙy in some, especially the beings.
The Anaxagorean notion of Νous needs further cΙarification. Questions which emerge include: a) has ly'oas a spiritual and transcendant meaning or is it a purely mechanistic quality,
b) where has Nous οomΘ from? As a consequence of the materialistic cosmos, or from outside the closed system of material mixture? Taking his exact wording, he states that <all things were initially together, then Noas came and ordered them>>. An observation immediately arises: does Αnaxagoras mean the beginning oftime? Ιn this case, by some unexplained' but automatic and dogmatic way, it sets an axiom: in the beginning everything tνvas one, a closed system. But what
existed outside this system? Or does <<outside> mean an unimaginable space exterior to the area where <eνerything was mixed in infinitive fundamental particles>? Αlthough Nous is brought in as a universal power without any explanation regarding its origin, it may imply either the theistic presence, or a rational explanation emerging from manifestations of matter.

C. Cengiz Çevik, “Herakleitos’un Doğa Üzerine Kitabıyla İlgili Kaynaklar ve Yorumlar,” Felsefi Düşün 13 (2019): 121-133.

ÖZ

Presokratik filozoflar da kitaplar yazmıştır, ancak ne yazık ki bu kitapların hiçbiri günümüze tam olarak ulaşmamıştır. Sonraki yazarların eserlerinde, doksografi ve ansiklopedi metinlerinde bu kitapların bazılarından yapılan alıntılara ve bu kitaplara ait olduğu düşünülen veciz sözlere rastlamaktayız. Bununla birlikte bazı eserler de bu kitapların adı, içeriği ve dolaşıma geçip geçmediğiyle ilgili bilgiler vermektedir. Bu çalışmada antik kaynaklarda Herakleitos’a atfedilen ve yaygın olarak Περὶ φύσεως (Doğa Üzerine) adıyla anılan eserle ilgili tartışmalara yer verilmektedir. Bu kapsamda Antikçağ ile Ortaçağ’a ait tüm kaynaklar taranmıştır. Bunlar arasında Diogenes Laertius, Platon, Aristoteles, Sextus Empiricus, Strabon, Stobaios, Simplicius gibi önemli yazarlar bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca gerek Herakleitos’u, gerekse ondan sonraki felsefe geleneğinde bıraktığı izleri inceleyen saygın modern kaynaklardaki yorumlar gözden geçirilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, Herakleitos’a atfedilen tek eserle ilgili dağınık haldeki tüm kaynakları ve yapılan tüm tartışmaları bir bütün halinde sunup ele almaktır. Konusu itibariyle bir ilk olan bu çalışma, batı felsefe geleneğini derinden etkilemiş olan Herakleitos’un ünlü deyişlerinin olası kaynağıyla ilgili bundan sonra yapılacak olan başka kapsamlı çalışmalara da katkı sunacaktır.

Nous nous efforçons de présenter ce que, à partir d'éléments positivement donnés dans des textes présocratiques, nous pouvons considérer comme un problème ayant été soulevé et ayant donné lieu à une procédure intellectuelle nouvelle permettant de le traiter, selon une démarche susceptible d’être rétrospectivement qualifiée de philosophique.