One modern characteristic of many historians of philosophy is the desire to look back upon previous philosophical ages with an eye toward any particular unifying features that can readily mark a specific age. The goal of such an approach to the history of philosophy is to be able to abstract the essence of thought being discussed at a particular time in history so as to provide a gateway into the issues of concern for people long ago deceased. Its process requires that the minutia must be past over for the generic, the all encompassing for the unique. This general descriptive manner of examining the history of philosophy can be helpful for the overall digestion of a large period of philosophical thought. However, this all encompassing approach to a given period of history can lead to an oversimplification of thought and a harmonizing of belief. It is tempting to look back upon the history of philosophy and to examine in it from the present something which it itself never would have claimed for itself. Here the temptation is to read into a specific age a common motif, presupposition, or argumentative goal that seems to transcend specific personalities. But such a reading of history can lead to a prescriptive lens of viewing the past instead of the descriptive lens that is needed. The historian of philosophy must not reinvent the past, but allow the past to determine itself. This is a difficult task. I do not presume to have mastered it, nor even anything close to it. However, it is a warning that I believe is too many times left off from these sorts of exercises. In my experience ideas, and especially people, are always more complicated than we first think, perhaps most especially when we think they are simple or in this case, their ideas to be archaic.
It is with this caution that I now turn to an examination of Pre-Scoratic Greek philosophy. Here we can properly ask are there any descriptive common motifs that arise from individuals and form a common “Greek” philosophy? Or, are the personalities too disparate, too varied in philosophy and in time that any characterization of “Greek” philosophy quickly turns into a caricature of Greek philosophy? To begin to answer these questions, I will briefly examine three major philosophical movements that occurred in the Greek-influenced context, probing one major representative for each movement. In the end, I believe that we will make evident that there are a selective few common motifs that characterize these Greek philosophers, yet that any broad understanding of “Greek” philosophy is flawed if it does not take into account not only similarities, but perhaps more importantly, their many differences.
Moreover, Heraclitus presents a philosophy that has its core an appreciation of a basis for knowledge for which all are able to use and employ. He writes, “For although all things happen according to this Logos, men are like people of no experience, even when they experience such words and deeds as I explain, when I distinguish each thing according to its constitution and declare how it is…although the Logos is common the many live as though they had a private understanding.” Here it is important to note several interesting implications. First, Heraclitus presumes there is a universal, underlining truth in the world in which all people have access to, yet most ignore. This is interesting because it is a presupposition that will carry onward in much of Greek philosophy. Second, Heraclitus assumes that for the few that do understand this universal knowledge, they ought to use perception to find answers. “The things of which there is seeing and hearing and perception, these do I prefer.” Hence, for Heraclitus, the world of sensation provides the foundation for human knowledge.
Finally,
Heraclitus argues that individuals are subject to fate. He writes, “…all things
happen by strife and necessity.” Here Heraclitus is discussing the complete
flux of the cosmos and the world fire as encompassing the change of reality.
For Heraclitus, the cosmos is a dark and changing place, one of constant flux,
of ignorance, and of a disastrous fate. Yet, there is hope in Heraclitus as
there is truth to be found through perception, and a principle by which humanity
can know the cosmos.
Pythagoras:
Abstraction from the Physical
Pythagoras is typically, and rightfully,
associated with mathematics and geometry; he is presented as a figure deeply
concerned with numbers and formulas that might explain the physical world. This
is indeed an important factor in Pythagoras’ thought, but its
oversimplification can easily conceal a more important insight developed by
Pythagoras, namely that through mathematical formulation one can abstract from
the material causation of the world and understand the principles that lie
behind it. Rather than staying with the merely perceivable, as we see in
Heraclitus, Pythagoras takes the physical world and looks past it towards a
ratio of geometric formulation in order to understand the truth of reality
beyond just the strictly observed. It is for this reason that he is able to
postulate areas of inquiry such as the salvation of souls, the notion
of asceticism, and conception of body/soul, all of which could never be achieved
in the physical philosophy of Heraclitus. Pythagoras presents a philosophy that
is not satisfied with the changeableness of the world, but seeks the
underlining reality within.
Nevertheless,
this does seem to have parallels in Heraclitus’ thought, which should not surprise
us as Heraclitus was Pythagoras’ contemporary. Heraclitus too understood the
cosmos to be holding a principle by which truth can be learned, just as
Pythagoras looked to geometric principles to explain the form of all things.
Pythagoras sets up the following analogy, “Life, he said, is like a festival;
just as some come to the festival to compete, some to ply their trade, but the
best come as spectators, so in life the slavish men go hunting for fame or
gain, the philosophers for truth.” While Pythagoras does not explicitly use the
term Logos, his philosophy nevertheless reflects a deep appreciation for truth
and for the human mind’s ability to ascertain knowledge of the world that is
not subjective, but available for all. Hence, we can derive several interesting
philosophical presuppositions that naturally flow from Pythagoras’ philosophy.
First, for Pythagoras there were geometrical principles that naturally flow out
of the cosmos and allow the human mind to understand the reality of the
changing world. Hence, for Pythagoras the changing world had principles by
which it operated as a nature. Second, those principles were abstracted from
the material cosmos; they were understood as embedded into the world, yet not
identical with the world. Hence, while the material world operated under these
deterministic principles, the principles themselves were not isolated to the
material world. What is Greek Philosophy?
We began this article with the questions, are there any descriptive common motifs that arise from individuals and form a common “Greek” philosophy? Or, are the personalities too disparate, too varied in philosophy and in time that any characterization of “Greek” philosophy quickly turns into a caricature of Greek philosophy? Now we can preliminarily provide an answer. There are several characteristics that seem to repeat themselves in the above philosophies and point toward a common theme among Pre-Socratic Greek philosophy. First, Pre-Socratic Greek philosophy tends to share a common presupposition that there exists an intelligible world in which the senses have some access to, and by which knowledge (even if limited severely) is somewhat possible. We see this in Heraclitus in his understanding, even if a bit cryptic, of the Logos. “…although the Logos is common the many live as though they had a private understanding,” Heraclitus laments. In other words, there is knowledge out there to be had, if only the will of the person to achieve it. We see this also in Pythagoras as through mathematical formulation, which is universally applicable, the changeable world is able to be understood and properly articulated. Even in Protagoras, who often is understood as a pure relativist, still presumes that this knowledge, even if the criterion for that knowledge is subjective to the person, exists and is knowable. Hence, we can rightfully conclude that for the Pre-Socratics, there was a basis for knowledge that was accessible for the human mind, derived through principles, and typically restricted to those who were willing to achieve it. Second, the Pre-Socratics believed that there was a reality that existed in the material world and isolated to it. While the criterion for judging what that reality consisted of, in terms of its principles, varied among philosophers, the idea that there was in fact a reality, and that it was materially composed, remained. Even in the most staunchly limiting philosophies, such as Gorgias or Heraclitus, there remained something which could be articulated, a reality by which something could be said to exist, even if all that could be said was that it was incomprehensible. Hence, while the reality itself was contested, what was not contested was that there was a reality.
Yet, this is not to argue that Pre-Socratic philosophy agreed on everything. As seen above, there are remarkable differences between these philosophies. While for Pythagoras the stability of the world allowed for geometrical certainty, for Heraclitus such a postulation was unfounded, as the world was always in flux. Moreover, while for Heraclitus the world was deducible to a Logos by which knowledge was tested, for Protagoras humanity was the judge by which knowledge was tested. Hence, we must conclude that while it is possible to speak of particular “Greek” Pre-Socratic themes, it must be recognized that there are just as many, if not many more, disagreements.
