Andrei V. Lebedev, Izbavliaias’ ot «dosokratikov» (Getting rid of the «Presocratics»), in: Philosophy in the dialogue of cultures. Materials of the World Philosophy Day (Moscow - St. Petersburg, November 16 -19, 2009), p. 177 - 183 (in Russian). Translated into English by the author. This paper was delivered in the Institute of philosophy of the Russian Academy of sciences at the Round Table «Getting rid of stereotypes in the history of philosophy». Some explanatory remarks that have been added in the English translation are placed in square brackets.

In 1903 the Weidmann Publishing House in Berlin published the first edition of Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker by the distinguished German classical scholar Hermann Diels which still remains the most complete single edition of the fragments of the Early Greek philosophers (of the VI - V centuries B.C.). In the first edition it started with Thales and ended with «Anhang» that contained pre-philosophical tradition (cosmogonic poetry and prose, the sayings of the Seven Sages) as well as the fragments of the Sophists. After Diels’s death (1922) his disciple Walter Kranz in the last 5th edition (1934) gave it its present structure by dividing the whole text into three parts: A) Anfänge (pre-philosophical tradition), B) Fragments of the Greek Philosophers of the 6th and 5th centuries and their immediate followers and C) Sophists. There are all in all 90 chapters, in which about 400 names are mentioned, of which 235 derive from Jamblichus’ Catalogue of Pythagoreans. Diels himself explained in the preface to the first edition that he included in his collection also some mathematicians and a selection of non-Hippocratic doctors. As a result of this the collection of Diels has assembled quite heterogeneous authors. Besides well known real philosophers (like Heraclitus and Parmenides) and naturalists (physiologoi), we encounter here mythical singers Orpheus and Musaios (chapters 1-2), an epic poet Hesiod (chapter 4), a soothsayer, wonders-worker and root-cutter (rhizotomos) Epimenides of Crete (3), a comic poet Epicharmus of Syracuse (23), a tragic poet Ion of

1 Chios (36), architects and urban planners Thaleas and Hippodamus (39), a sculptor Polykleitos (40), geometers Hippocrates of Chios (42) and Theodoros (43) etc. The diversity of genres of the texts included is also wide: besides cosmogonic and metaphysical works, the Vorsokratiker accomodate a cook- book by Epicharmus (23 B 63), magical-eschatological texts on golden plates excavated by archeologists from graves (something like Vademecum of the netherworld for the souls of the dead, 1 B 17 ff.), a navigational astronomy attributed to Thales (11 B 1) and paignia of the Sophist Gorgias (82 B 11) etc. The canon of authors included by Diels in «Vorsokratiker» raises some questions. On the ground of which criteria all these authors who wrote on a variety of different subjects - religious, mythological, scientific, philosophical, technological (and even mythical persons among them) should be united under the same category of «Pre-Socratics», and in which sense exactly did they «precede» Socrates or were his « precursors»? This is far from clear. 2. Chronological incongruities make the artificial character of the collection even more problematic. Why on earth the sophists of the second half of the 5th century most of whom were contemporaries of Socrates (469 -399 B.C.) depicted in Plato’s dialogues as his opponents, should be classed with «Presocratics»? Diels’s VS includes even a whole philosophical school, the school of Abdera or the Atomists (chapters 69-78), not a single member of which can be regarded as «Presocratic» from the chronological point of view. Even the oldest of them, Democritus (we do not believe in the historicity of «Leucippus») was almost 10 years younger than Socrates (born 460 B.C.) and he outlived Socrates by decades (he died at the age of 104 according to Lucian). In other words, Democritus was an elder contemporary of Plato. It follows that Socrates was «Predemocritic» rather than Democritus was «Presocratic». Not to mention those later members of the School of Abdera who were contemporary with Alexander the Great, like Anaxarchus (ch. 72), Hecataeus of Abdera (ch. 73), Pyrrho’s disciple Nausiphanes (ch. 75), and even an Egyptian alchemist of the Hellenistic period Bolus of Mendes (c.78). 3. The term «Presocratics» is of German, not of Greek origin (German

2 Vorsokratiker). 1 It became widespread in the 19th century in the epoch of «academic classicism» when only works of the classical period were regarded as classical in the sense of exemplary, whereas all that preceded or came after that was regarded as either not-yet-exemplary or not-exemplary- anymore. Exemplary «classical» philosophers were Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. All philosophy before that was only a «preparation» of the classical akme, «Vorsokratisches», and all that came after was already a decay, «Nacharistotelisches». Today no one would refer to Hellenistic philosophy as «Post-Aristotelian». [But «Presocratic» is a relic of the same conceptual scheme.] And we all still remember the official Soviet division of philosophy into «Marxist» and «Pre-Marxist» or «Bourgeois». 4. There is a subtle linguistic difference between the terms Vorsokratische (Philosophie or Philosophen) and Vorsokratiker. The first term derives from the prefix Vor- and the name of Socrates. It has purely chronological meaning, i.e. refers to philosophers who lived and philosophized before Socrates (vor Sokrates). Now, the second term derives not exactly from the name of Socrates, but from its derivative Sokratiker, i.e. the followers of Socrates or Socratic schools (note that in Russian the correct adjective from Dosokratiki «Presocratics» should be «dosokraticheskii» - preceding Socratics, not «dosokratovskii» - preceding Socrates). In classical Greek the suffix -ικοι was regularly used for the philosophical schools being added either to the name of a place (or city) where the school was located or to the name of the Founder: Greek Megarikoi - German Megariker Greek Kyrenaikoi - German Kyrenaiker Greek Platonikoi - German Platoniker etc. As a result of this, because of the association of the suffix -ikoi/-iker with the notion of school (hairesis), Greek philosophers and other writers of the 6th and 5th centuries included in Diels’s VS, whose only common feature is that

1 Hegel in his “History of philosophy” does not use it yet. Zeller in his “History of Greek philosophy” (3rd edition, 1869) uses the term “Vorsokratische Philosophie” (the 1st period which ends with the Sophists), but not Vorsokratiker.

3 they lived before the 4th century, have been conceived as a kind of a special philosophical school, or, at least, as a certain theoretical school of thought which in fact is as chimerical as the alleged Founder of this school «Presocrates». And indeed, if Platonikoi (Platoniker) are the followers of Plato, then the Presocratics (Vorsokratiker) must be followers of a certain Presocrates... In this connection it would be not irrelevant to refer to the recent observation of Nelli Motroshilova [at the Round Table] that stereotypes in the history of philosophy may arise from the ontologization of the relative. Professor A.F.Losev In his «History of Ancient Aesthetics» even introduces the term «dosokratika» (a substantive, feminine) by which he means a certain type of philosophizing or a complex of related ideas. Needless to say, such school of thought has never existed. 5. Although the term «Presocratics» is of modern origin, the stereotypes with which it is laden go back to Plato and Aristotle. In the philosophical autobiography of Socrates in Plato’s Phaedo (96 a 6 sq.), Socrates the moral philosopher is presented in a sharp contrast and as an antithesis to all preceding «physikoi». But let us not forget that Plato’s negative attitude towards all natural science is characteristic of early and middle dialogues (to which «Phaedo» belongs). Exactly and only at this moment in the Academy an illusion could arise that the age of physics had passed, and a new age of ethics had begun. In his later dialogues (Timaeus) Plato himself reconsidered the value of the philosophy of nature (teleologically reinterpreted, of course), whereas in the Corpus Aristotelicum ta physika (in broad sense) have a lion’s share. And just as physics did not die with Socrates, so ethics was not born with him. The physicalist myth about «Presocratics» also owes a lot to the Alpha of «Metaphysics» of Aristotle where most of the early philosophers are presented as cosmologists and «materialists». Aristotle regularly refers to early philosophers as physiologoi or those who produced theories peri physeos. In this case we should take into account Aristotle’s tendency to «physicalize» the first principles of the first philosophy [I mean that both «Physics» and «Metaphysics» have the same theory of first principles] - which

4 can be best explained in the context of his theoretical polemics against Platonic dualism of two worlds; the fact that «most» of the preceding philosophers (allegedly) investigated the physical cosmos only and did not recognize «separate» mental world served as a dialectical argument e consensu omnium against Plato. But in fact pure physikoi were only the Ionians (and not all of them: Heraclitus was a moral and religious philosopher). The Western Greek philosophers, the Pythagoreans and Eleatics, from the start accepted anti-naturalistic dualistic metaphysics; the aims of this philosophy were ethical, political and theological, not scientific. But let us also be fair to Aristotlle: unlike the mainstream modern English speaking history of Greek philosophy, which does not recognize the fundamental difference between the Ionians and Eleatics [by viewing them all as «Presocratics»], Aristotle does counterpose them sharply and calls the latter στασιώτας τῆς φύσεως καὶ ἀφυσίκους (ap. Sext.Emp. 10.46). 6. The ancient histories of Greek philosophy of the Διαδοχαί type (diachronical histories of philosophical schools) do not mention the «Presocratics» invented in the 19th century. Instead they speak not of one early tradition, but of two distinct traditions, the Ionian (starting with Thales) and the Italian (starting with Pythagoras). Despite the artificial character of some «successions» (e.g. according to Diogenes Laertius, Socrates was a disciple of Archelaus and thefeore «Ionian»), grosso modo this approach is historically more accurate and better explains τὰ φαινόμενα. The Western Greek Philosophy was created by Pythagoras on fundamentally different principles as an antithesis to and negation of the Ionian naturalism; its principal aim was not specialized scientific research, but the construction of a [religiously and morally relevant] general worldview and the education of ideal citizens. The representatives of these two traditions had different perceptions and even different names of their intellectual enterprise. The Ionians called it «investigation about nature» (peri physeos historia), the Italians - «love of wisdom», philosophia. [We accept the ancient tradition about the Pythagorean origin of the term philosophia]. The key term of the Ionian science was φύσις, the key terms of the Italian «love of wisdom», ψυχή and ἀλήθεια. The cosmic

5 harmony of the Pythagoreans was not just a law of nature (like Anaximander’s law of exact compensation in material change), but a moral and political paradigm for ascetic spiritual discipline. In all fundamental problems of philosophy these two traditions contradicted one another and defended opposing views. In metaphysics and cosmology the Ionians proclaimed naturalistic monism [we avoid the term «materialism» as misleading]. They recognized the universality of the laws of nature which abolished the notion of «heaven» (the celestial bodies consist of the same elements, as earthen creatures), and, consequently, abolished the traditional mythopoetic division of the world into heavenly-divine-immortal part on the one hand, and the earthen-human-mortal part, on the other. The Ionians also believed in the infinite Universe with innumerable worlds (Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Democritus). On the contrary, The Italians were dualists both in metaphysics and cosmology. The division of the cosmos into the divine celestial region and the mortal sub-lunar region was in fact a revival of the traditional mythopoetic worldview. In epistemology the Ionians favored sensualism, and the Italians radical rationalism and apriorism. From the point of view of the Ionian naturalistic monism psyche could only be corporeal and mortal. The Italians regarded psyche as a divine being coming from another world and only temporarily connected with the mortal body. In ethics (to judge by fragments of Democritus and Ionian sophists) the Ionians favored anthropocentrism and moderate hedonism. The ethics of Pythagoreans and Eleatics had metaphysical (and religious) foundation and was strictly ascetical and anti- hedonistic. In politics the Ionians (except Heraclitus) favored democracy and liberalism (Democritus, Protagoras), the Italians - aristocratic elitism. Old German historians of philosophy of the 18-th and 19-th century correctly understood and described the difference between the two traditions (though, the terminology they used was peculiar: Ionian realism versus Italian rationalism). The historian of philosophy who played a fatal role in creating the still persistent stereotype of «Presocratics», all of whom allegedly shared the same mentality, was John Burnet with his «Early Greek Philosophy» first published in 1892. A brilliant classical scholar and connoiseur of the source

6 criticism, Burnet, unfortunately, was philosophically naive and tendentious [this has been seen already by Cornford]. He tried to impose on all early Greek philosophers the same positivist mould, apparently in the context of «anti-German» [an hence anti-idealist] polemics. He did everything to eliminate from the texts of early Greek philosophers all traces of speculative metaphysics and to turn them all into scientific positivists. By doing this Burnet tried to undercut and refute traditional German claims concerning exclusive ties between German idealism and Greek philosophy. Suffice it to mention here that Burnet called Parmenides «the father of materialism», and proposed to interpret Aristotelian ethics on the basis of his physics. 7. The most stereotypical stereotype of the English speaking history of Greek philosophy is the following scenario of the 5th century development of the «Presocratic» philosophy. After the first bold attempts to formulate theories of arkhai of the Milesian and hylozoistic type, there came the epoch- making criticism of Parmenides and Zeno who demanded to explain the very possibility of motion and change. As a reply» to the Eleatics appeared the so called «pluralistic» systems of Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Democritus. As a matter of fact, the origin of the physical theories of Anaxagoras and Democritus can be easily explained from the internal development of the Ionian tradition itself; there is no need to postulate any Eleatic influence at all. The theory of the cosmic Mind (Gnome) had been formulated before Anaxagoras already by Heraclitus. Anaxagoras simply combined it with Anaximander’s theory of the universal mixture [correctly ascribed to Anaximander by Aristotle and Theophrastus]. And Democritus’ mechanistic determinism cannot be derived from Parmenides’ immaterialism; besides that, Democritean atoms, unlike Parmenides’ being, are not composed of pure thought. [We accept the pre-Burnet and pre-Zeller interpretation of Parmenid. B3 and believe that Parmenides’ being has mental nature]. If Democritus indeed «replied» to Parmenides’ criticism with his recognition of the existence of «what is not» (i.e. of vacuum), he did it ironically and as a joke. The author of the sophistic treatise «Dissoi logoi» has preserved a valuable evidence which demonstrates that at the end of the 5th century B.C. two dominant and

7 opposing schools of thought in philosophy were Anaxagoreioi and Pythagoreioi, i.e. the followers of the Ionian and the Italian traditions. It is quite possible that by Pythagoreioi he meant Eleatics. 8. Apart from ancient stereotypes, the term «Presocratics» has been influenced by some interpretational myths of the 19-th and 20-th centuries. Here are the most important of the them. 1) The positivist myth of the 19-th century (Burnet, T. Gomperz, Tannery) 2) The Nietzschean myth which idealizes Greek philosophers of the supposed «Tragic» era before the Socratic fall from grace, dialectical and moralistic at once. [In fact there was a lot of metaphysics in archaic Greek philosophy, and a lot of moralizing, too]. 3) The Heideggerian myth about «Presocratics» which relies on philologically dubious etymologies. 4) The epistemological and anti-theological myth about «Presocratics» by Carl Popper which is a revival of the 19-th century positivist myth.

1. Some conclusions. The term «Presocratics» should be rather avoided as historically and chronologically incorrect, and as theoretically misleading. Instead it would be more accurate to speak about «Early Greek Philosophers» or - following the historians of Greek art - to distinguish Greek philosophy of the archaic period (585 - 480 B.C.), of the early classical (480 - 450) and of the high classical period (450 - 400 B.C.). As a purely formal alternative to «Presocratics» one might use a more precise term «Pre-Platonic philosophers» (but not «Preplatonics»!) , i.e. philosophers who lived and philosophized before 400 B.C. Unlike the term «Presocratics», this term both avoids confounding very different thinkers (scientists and philosophers) into chimerical single tradition and does not entail chronological incongruities, as it covers most of the ancient sophists as well [I mean that Sophists are usually not included among «Presocratics», although the 5th century Sophists were contemporaries of Democritus and Anaxagoras]. «Presocratics» in that sense of the word in which it has been used since

8 Burnet’s times in the mainstream English speaking histories of Greek philosophy*, have never existed. Instead there was a period of 200 years of the free development of the early Greek scientific and philosophical thought in the course of which many of the subsequent tendencies and theoretical debates of the late Classical and Hellenistic epochs had already been formulated. To mention only some of them: teleology against mechanistic determinism (Heraclitus against the Milesians, B 124 DK), metaphysical monism against dualism, rationalism against empiricism, anthropological ethics against ethics with metaphysical foundation etc.

*[I mean the prevailing view that philosophers before Plato had all been naturalists or materialists. In my view idealistic metaphysics did exist already in archaic period - this of course remains to be demonstrated in detail in the case of both Pythagoreans and Eleatics - and so Plato’s philosophy was not so much a revolutionary innovation as a nostalgic revival of the archaic doctrines that had been removed from the philosophical scene by the 5th century Greek Enlightenment].

9