Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
of Presocratic Philosophy.
A Contribution to the Reconstruction
of the Early Retrospettive View
of Presocratic Philosophy
1. Introduction
people, even if they are not aware of it, is a good reason for saying
that they are all contributing to a definite intellectual enterprise. h
may be difficult to explain how a tradition of this kind gas estab-
rish,ed, but its identification is quite possible, and this takes piace
retrospectively. There are however various ways in which this can
take piace. We should be aware of the important difference in atti-
tude between modem scholars who attempato give an account d a
past which does not concem them directly any more and thinIters
like Aristotle who, though concemed with obtaining a view d the
past, are themselves pursuing inquiries which stili belong, to some
extent at least, to that sante tradition.
As for the 'modem retrospettive view, it can be said that some
decades ago it was largely believed that the Presocratic philosophen
formed a group unified by a common approach. This confidence
was based on a certain overall interpretatìon of Presocratic philoso-
phy, which in more recent years has been increasingly subject to
trincia This overall intepretation, despite taking lino account
certain ancient testimontes, is mainly the product of modem
scholarship. If one assumes that talking of 'Presocratic philosophy'
makes sense only if this modem interpretation is workable, one is
induced to question the very legitimacy d using this expression,
since it reflects a modem consnuction. In a way, this conclusion is
ini-wapable, I think, since it is only in modem times that the idea
that without exceptions alt those who are conventionally called
'Presocratic philosophers' actually shared a common approach, has
been formulated.
However, if we give up the modem idea of Presocratic philoso-
phy', the consequence is not that we are left with a complete void.
As I will try to establish below, at the end of the fifth century and
in the fourth there was a rather widespread conviction that there
had been a tradition of inquiry about nature (physiologia) which had
started with Thales and which, in a way, had come to an end with
Socrates. If this is true, there was an ancient idea of 'Presocratic phi-
losophy' which certainly does not coincide with our modem idea of
'Presocratic philosophy', so that it could be questioned whether we
should stili use the same expression for the ancient idea. However,
these ancients did talk of 'philosophy', and in fact in our modem
use of the expression 'Presocratic philosophy' the word 'philosophy'
subsists because the ancients used it, and not because we modem
scholars are fully convinced that it is appropriate to apply it to
358 Walter Leszl
the Presocratics. Again, the fact that with Socrates there was a
change in the orientation of philosophy is an ancient idea (it is a
well-known fact, on which I shall comment briefly below, that in
Aristotle we find assertions to this effect), usually accepted by mod-
eri scholars without many qualifications. So what is problematic,
about this ancient idea, is not the use of the expression 'Presocratic
philosophy' irself, but whether all those thinkers that we are used
to canina 'Presocratic philosophers' cm be gathered onda this
heading. It is a point that I shall discuss below, limiting myself to
Aristotle's account of the metter. Anticipating the conclusion of my
discussion, I cari say that the question of what to do about those who
did not contribute to physiologia was not ignored by the ancients and
did not lead to one clear solution.
The fact that the ancients had some idea of a Presocratic philoso-
phy is not enough, of course, to show that this is a well-grounded
idea. Trying to offer indications (which cannot be decisive bermivi
of the limita of our evidence) in favour of a stronger conclusion
would belong to the second stage of a larger enterprise. My present
efforts are limited to the first stage of this enterprise, that is to say,
they concem the reconstruction of what I have called «the early
retrospective view of Presocratic philosophy, and are focused on
Aristotle's contribution to the view (I have to leave out any consid-
erations of the early retrospettive view of the Presocmtic 'philoso-
pher'). Even the esistente of such a view is not beyond doubt, so
that an attempt to establish it is not superfluous. Some clarification
is needed about the precise nature of this view.
Cronunss 1951. In what follows some quotations come from the final chapter
of Cimatoss 1935, but the overall account is
359 Aristoteles on the Unity of Presocratic Philosophy
its contents to its bare bones from the point of vievr that is of inter-
est to us at present (I do not daini to do justice to an article which
remains instructive even if one does not accept its °versa interpre-
tation). Chemiss regards Thale.s (not wholly without justification)
as too nebulous a figure to make Presocratic philosophy start with
him rather th.an with Anaximander. He suggests that «Anaximander
was primarily interested in the protesa by which the world exhlbits
its changing phases, a process which he envisaged as a balancing of
individuai accounts in the fund ci a common mixture» amata
1935, 379). With Anaximenes there is art important development,
i.e. «the introduction of the notion that all things change accord-
ing to a single quantitative mechanism» (ibid., 380). Heraclitus
brings this proposition to its logical conclusion. While Anaximenes
retained «the matter which changes», with characteristics peculiar
to a transitional phase in the changes going on in the world, Hera-
clitus supposed it is «the process alone which really exists» and that
«all the distinctions made by men are but fleeting phases of the
process» (Cmsauss 1951, 331).
Then Chemiss asserts that Heraclita's position «called forth a
protest that checked this whole train of thought» (Grazna 1935,
383, cf. CHERNIS8 1951, 336). This protest carne from Parmenides,
whole «whole atgument [...] proceeds by applying the law of excluded
middie to prove that the identity of what is precludes the possibility of
any characteristic except just beim» (Dimas 1951, 338)2. Yet the
Parmenidean logic did not previde just a check but also a «mighty
stimulus», and, in this way, «determined the subsequent toast of
Presocratic philosophy which was in the main a seria of attempts to
save the world of nature without transgressirtg the rules of the new
logic» (339). What is new with Parmenides is that, while the lonians
and Hemclitus tried account for the process underlying the physical
world, on the assumption that continuous motion exists «as one of the
essential characteristics of all material things» (Cantala 1935, 382),
he questioned this very assumption, by raising logical difficulties about
the possibility of change in generai. (cf. ibid., 373).
2 Notice that the opposition adopted by Nato between rheontes and stasiotai is
assumed in this account, but typically the ancien authot just recognizes the oppo-
sition, while the modem author supposes that one of tese two positions, namely
that of the stasiotes Parmenides, is elaborated in reply to that of the theotaes.
360 Walter Lessi
3
The mast explicit statement of this view is to be found in Poeeea 1963, who
talks of «the tradition of critica]. discussioni« (152).
" In the case of Parmenides he says: «that the poem of Pannenides is directed
sokly against Heraclitus is a contention much reo narrow to be maintained»
(Cueltress 1935, 383); in the other case he remarks that .Heraclitus is not to be
understcod, however, as simply continuing and extending Milesian philosophy»,
since «the characteristics of his thought were entirely different from those of the
Milesians and something entirely new» (1951, 332).
Notice that Melissus explicitly excludes, in fr. 7, any sort of 'rearrangement'
or of emergence of an arrangement or cader (egonos) which did not exist before,
so that (in relation to this statement) the position of the pluralists would be an
ignorano elenchi.
362 Walter Leszl
6 «For it ie because of this that they use the expression "all things were together"
posed that all changes are alterations of one matter which is something
permanent in the manner of a substrate.
The clearest formulatiort of this point is given in Metaphysia, 1,
3, 983b6 ff., after the claim that most of the earliest philosophers
only thought of the principles of all things as being materiali «That
of which all the things that are consist and from which they come
to be as fumi a first and into which they ultimately pass away, while
their essente (ousia) persista but changes as to its modifications
— this they say, is the element arai this the principia of the things
that ave. lience they believe that nothing is eithet generated or
destroyed, since a nature (physis) of this kind is always preserved.
(983138-13). In what follows Aristotle introduca the notion of
the substrate, which comes back in a tater passage, containing the
similar assumption that for all physicists all generation is either
from one thing or from many things and all commtion is into the
same thing or into the same things (ci Metaph., 1, 3, 984a17 ff., esp.
a19-20). The cause is the material one, in the sesse of the substrate
(hypokeimenon) which underlies all changes. We should remember,
in this connection, that the idea that everything is generated from
that thing or those things into which it is corrupted cornes back
in Theophrastus, e.g., conceming Anaximandee. The point is
edge of science, beni neither on barra to his neighbors nor on ways of injustice; but,
conremplating the ageless order of undying nature, knoweth what it is and how..
369 Aristoteles on the Unity of Presocratic Philosophy
all things», regarding this as a sort of folly (cfr. 1, 1, 11). The for-
mula «about the nature of all things», with evident reference to the
Presocratics' speculation, is repeated a link later (1, 1, 14). That he
refers to the Presocratics is confirmed by the classification of ta onta
provided in this other passage, since this classification is typically
applied to them, and by the explicit reference to Anaxagoras in 4,
7, 6, where the sort of speculation pursued by thinkers like him is
also treated as a sort of folly.
From the evidence collected so far from the worIcs of Plato and
other authors, it becomes clear that certain thinkers, like Empedo-
cles and Anaxagoras, were regarded as having contributed to the
inquiry about nature in some typical way. It is rather likely — though
not certain — that Thales was already regarded as the protos heuretes
of this sort of inquiry. He is mentioned as the typical philosopher-
scientist by Aristophanes not only in the Clouds (180, where it is
suggested — not serlously of course — that the admiration he desetves,
clearly as a naturalist, grows pale before that deserved by Socrates)
but also in the Birds (1009, and context). As is usual with a protos
heuretes, significant anecdotes are told of him. In addition to the one
told by Plato in the 77teatems, there is also the one told by Aristotle
in his Politics (1, 11), and the one often told (starting already with
Herodotus, 1, 74) of him forecasting a solar eclipse. Conceming the
other end of this nadition, there was an awareness, at least among
the Socratics, that Socrates did not pursue this sort of inquiry inten-
tionally, so that his position was a sort of watershed (one can quote
Aristotle's testimony, but I think it is likely that on this point he is
just reporting what was a commonplace among the Socratics). Yet it
is not clear Lola this evidence whether all the Presocratics or only
some of them were supposed to have contributed to the inquiry
about nature. We may cast light upon this point if we look at some
passages in Aristotle, which imply some selectivity in the category
of the thinkers who contributed to it.
" E.g. Ph., 1, 2, 184615 ff.; 1, 3, 186a19 ff.; 1, 4; Metaph., 4, 3, 1005a31; 12, 6,
1171626 ff.; 13,4.
u E.g. Ph., 3, 4, 2031714-15; 4, 6, 213a34-b4 Cael 2 14, 297a12-14; Meta66., 1,
5, 986a10 ff.; 1, 8, 9891329 ff.; 5, 23, 1023a17 ff.; EE, 7, l, 1235a10 ff. (also once, in
Cool 3, 1, 298630: physiologesantes).
'3 Ph., 1, 4, 187a35; 3, 4, 203a16; Metaph., 3, 4, 1001a12.
Since the reference in the fast passage is probably to Democritus, what is
involved u not a distinction of two groups of Presocratics.
371 Aristoteles on the Unity of Presocratic Philosophy
" As Chemiss points out, Aristode's normal practice is that "of referring never
io the particular members of the school but indiseriminately to "the Pythagoreans",
"the Italia,,", or "the sowalled Pythagoreans". (Cmumass 1935, 37).
16 This tendency is also poinced out by CHEAMSS 1935, 46 ("the tendency to
In Ph., 3, 4, 203a1 ff. those who have dealt with nature (ot Sì crepi
cgoews, 203a16) are kept separate from the Pythagoreans and from
Plato, but they are all included among «those who are thought to
have touched upon this kind of philosophy [= the science of nature,
mentioned before] in a worthy manner». In MetaPh., 3, 4, 1001a4
ff. (where aporia 11th is discussed) those who have dealt with nature
(oi &2 utpi «men, alt) are clearly kept separate from Plato and
the Pythagoreans, without any suggestion there is any contact in
the inquiry they all held.
The most complete account of the Pythagorean theory is to be
found in Metaphysics, 1, 8. In the first part of this chapter Aristotle
starts his discussion with the monists, who are said to do physiolo-
gia about all things (netti TrdV11.01) 411)(71.0X07aVTES) and to inquire
about the causes of generation and corruption on the assumption
that only elements of corporea) things exist (cf. 988b24-28). Here
he considers the positions adopted by the monists (implicidy refer-
ring to Anaximenes, Heraclitus, etc.), but then, without transition,
he switches to Empedocles and Anaxagoras. At the end of this
account, he generalizes the consideration made about the monists
and asserts they were only concerned, in their discourses (X&yot),
with generation and corruption and with movement, in that they
looked for principles and causes relevant te this kind of reality
((biada). They are all kept separate from those who conducted their
inquiry about all entities, assuming that among entities some are
sensible (aioeird) and some are non sensible, and thus giving
attention to both types (cf. 989621-29). From what follows it is
clear that he puts both the Pythagoreans and Plato or the Platonists
under this heading. (The former are introduced with the formula:
oî tdv 0151) KaXoiSpitiot Ilveayópaoi, 989629, while the Platonic
position is introduced in ch. 9 with the formula: ot SÈ TI1S ts4as
Tieéptvoi, 990a34-b1)'7. He says: «The so-called Pythagoreans use
«The Pythagoreans are set apart from all of these philosophers [Le. Empedocles,
Anaxagoras, etc.] and treated as more closely related to the Platonists because
they appear to have been concemed as well with imperceptible as with perceptible
being, whereas the thinken so far considered re.stricted their attentino to genera-
tion, destruction, and motion in generai» (237).
17 The division of the exposition into two different chapters is of course not due
to Aristotle (just as all other divisione of the books into chapters are much later).
373 Aristoteles on the Unity of Presocratic Philosophy
principles and elements which are more foreign than those the
physicists use» since they let them be mathematical entities, and
these do not belong to the sphere of sensible things..Yet ali their
discussions and studies are concemed with nature, for they account
for the generation of the heavens, and make observations about
their parts and affections and activities so as to see what happens,
and they use up their principles and causes in this connection, as if
agreeing with the other physicists" that being is just this, namely
what is sensible and is contained in the so-called heavens» (989b
34 ff.). They do so in spite of the fact that their principles and
causes would be fitter to account for higher realities mther than
for nature. On this point, it is implied that they differed from the
Platonists, who (as is clear from the report he gives of their posi
tion) consciously assumed certain principles to account for intelli-
gible entities like Ideas and mathematical numbers (these must be
the One and the Indefinite Dyad, corresponding to the Limit and
Unlimited postulated by Pythagoreans).
In my view the comment on this passage by Chemiss is stili
right:
One may add that, from Aristotle's point of view, the Pythagoreans
stand midway alzo between the physical philosophers and the
Eleatics, whose inquiry does not belong to physics any more, even
though their starting point was the explanation of change in the
physical world.
'8 Probably the sense is that suggested by the following translation by Ross: «with
the othets, the physical philosophers» (othenyise there would be an inconsist-
ency).
CHERNISS 1935, 237 f.
374 Walter Leszl
6. Aristode's approach
zo Itis well known that in Meraph., 1, 3, 983620-21 he presenta Thales as the mi-
tiator of this sort of philosophical inquiry, and that in PA, 1, 1, 642a28-31, Meraph.
l, 6 and 13, 4 lie points out that with Socrates an attention for ethical issues at the
expense of the study of nature emerged.
375 Aristoteles on the Unity of Presocratic Philosophy
1.1 Cf. GC, 1, 2, 315a34 ff. and 316a5 ff., and 1, 8, 324b35-325a2.
376 Walter Leszl
22 Aristotle's familiarity with what musi have been the beginning of Ms work,
i.e. fragment l, is cenain, given his remark, in Rhetoric, 3, 5, 14071214 ff., about the
difficulty of punctuating irs first line.
At least the conclusion to which he comes should be recalled: although «they
studied the truth about reality. (Trepl TCW 6V7411.1 i CaleieELCIV &agórouv), they sup-
posed that entities (ta orna) are only the perceptible ones (1010aI-3).
377 Aristotele on the Unity of Presocratic Philosophy
24 One may refer to CALooeao 1932; on the saure line is Patricia Curd's contribu-
tion to the present volume.
25 S. E., M., 7, 65-87 (= 82 B 3), in introducine that work and at the conclusion
of his exposition of irs contents, claims that it results in eliminatine the criterion
of truth, bue this is manifestly his view of Gorgias' purpose. The formula «if this is
true» which appears in the MXG version is embedded in the argument and does
not concem the generai purpose of the writing.
378 Walter Lessi
8. C,onclusion
26 For a closer study of these varianti of one main classification one may refer to
the contributions by Jaap Mansfeld (esp. Mnamems 1986).
379 Aristoteles on the Unity of Presocratic Philosophy
just to write a history about it, but rather what to do with it. Modem
scholarship is not sufficiently aware of this, and tends to be misled
by Aristode himself, who testifies that philosophers tumed to erhics
and politics at the time of Socrates. Presocratic physiologia was alive
even after Socrates' death, at least for two reasons. One teflon is
that Hippocratic doctors relied on it and continued to carry out
research on the basis of Presocratic theories on nature, though their
own research was restricted m man in his condition of health and
siclmess and did not bring about significant innovations in the more
generai field of the study of nature. Another rea on is that Presocratic
physiologia went on in other fields of the study of man, such as com-
parative ethnology, to which Aristode himself must have given
some important contribution, following Eudoxusn. Aristode's own
purpose was not only to continue this research about man, but to
give a new impetus to physiologia as the study of nature as a whole.
He was to some extent (or with some qualifications) anticipated by
Nato in his Timaeus. h is Indy in putsuing this end that bali of
them were led to reflect on the account of causation given by the
Presocratics and to point out irs limits, in order to revise it signifi-
cantly. This was clearly not just 'doing history', but the same can
be said of other passages where they discuss the Presocratics. Since
they were in touch with a live tradition, it was rather unavoidable
for them to be bad historians. But, if one sees them as inheritors of a
tradition which was stili alive, one can allo find in their works traces
of this tradition that allow to go beyond their explicit testimony and
to reconstruct the past.
WALTER LESZL
Bibliography