The first philosophers of Greece : $b An edition and translation of the remaining fragments of the pre-Sokratic philosophers, together with a translation of the more important accounts of their opinions contained in the early epitomes of their worksFairbanks, Arthur
Philosophy
The first philosophers of Greece : $b An edition and translation of the remaining fragments of the pre-Sokratic philosophers, together with a translation of the more important accounts of their opinions contained in the early epitomes of their works
Fairbanks, Arthur
Philosophy, Ancient
Turning to the defects of the Aristotelian method, I would point out
that there is apparently no little difference in the care with which
Aristotle had studied the writings of his predecessors. His general
attitude towards the Eleatic school is well known, and there is no
evidence that he was really familiar with the works of Xenophanes or
Parmenides or Melissos. The fact that three of the four quotations from
Parmenides were at least suggested by Plato’s writings should not receive
undue weight, yet it is certainly suggestive. Several _sayings_ are
quoted from Herakleitos, and his logic is severely criticised; we do not,
however, obtain from Aristotle any conception of the real importance of
Herakleitos. In fact, Aristotle does not seem at all to have understood
the meaning of Herakleitos’ work, whether we are to attribute it to
his inability to put himself in sympathy with so different a thinker,
or to his failure to study his writings. If we had only the data from
Aristotle, we should really know more of the significant work of
Anaximandros than of Herakleitos.
The conception of the earlier Greek thinkers which we obtain from
Aristotle’s writings is distorted along four lines.
1. Whether or not it was due to his failure to study certain of these
thinkers, Aristotle’s comparative estimate of them is not one with which
we can agree. As for Herakleitos, we can say that Aristotle assigns him
a very important place in early thought, even though he gives us but
little clue to what his work really was. Perhaps he overestimates the
work of Anaximandros and Anaximenes because he finds in them so clear an
anticipation of his own thought. Certainly he does not give due weight to
the Eleatic school as a whole, and in particular to Melissos. Melissos
was not a great original thinker along entirely new lines, but his work
in systematising Eleatic thought was very important. Perhaps because
he resembled Aristotle in what he sought to do, although from so very
different premisses, he is handled with the greater disdain.
2. We may get from Aristotle a slightly distorted view of the earlier
thinkers because he stated their views in the terms of his own
philosophic system. The commonest philosophical terms, such as ἄπειρον,
ἕν, φύσις, κενόν, τὰ ὄντα, στοιχεῖον, σῶμα, οὐσία, πάθη, slightly
changed their meanings as they gradually took their place in a definite
philosophical terminology. ἄρχη is regularly used by Aristotle to denote
the original principle of all things which the early thinkers sought,
εἶδος is used in the statement of Herakleitos’ position[109] and of the
Pythagorean philosophy[110]: the latter a word introduced into philosophy
by Plato, the former probably not used in this sense before Aristotle
himself.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account