John Burnet's EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY John Burnet, 3rd edition (1920). London: A & C Black INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 2 NOTEONTHESOURCES ...............................................................................................................22 A.—PHILOSOPHERS ................................................................................................................23 B.—DOXOGRAPHERS.............................................................................................................24 I.DOXOGRAPHERSPROPER ...............................................................................................25 II.BIOGRAPHICALDOXOGRAPHERS .............................................................................27 C.—BIOGRAPHERS...................................................................................................................28 D.—CHRONOLOGISTS ...........................................................................................................28 CHAPTERI.,THEMILESIANSCHOOL......................................................................................30 I.THALES......................................................................................................................................31 II.ANAXIMANDER...................................................................................................................36 III.ANAXIMENES......................................................................................................................46 CHAPTERII.,SCIENCEANDRELIGION..................................................................................60 I.PYTHAGORASOFSAMOS..................................................................................................63 II.XENOPHANESOFKOLOPHON....................................................................................77 CHAPTERIII.,HERAKLEITOSOFEPHESOS ..........................................................................96 CHAPTERIV.,PARMENIDESOFELEA...................................................................................126 THEWAYOFTRUTH.............................................................................................................129 THEWAYOFBELIEF ............................................................................................................130 CHAPTERV., EMPEDOKLESOFAKRAGAS..........................................................................146 CHAPTERVI.,ANAXAGORASOFKLAZOMENAI..............................................................186 CHAPTERVII.,THEPYTHAGOREANS....................................................................................206 CHAPTERVIII.,THEYOUNGERELEATICS..........................................................................229 I.ZENOOFELEA....................................................................................................................230 II.MELISSOSOFSAMOS.......................................................................................................236 CHAPTERIX.,LEUKIPPOSOFMILETOS ...............................................................................246 CHAPTERX., ECLECTICISMANDREACTION.....................................................................260 I.HIPPON OFSAMOS ............................................................................................................261 II.DIOGENESOFAPOLLONIA11 ......................................................................................262 III.ARCHELAOSOFATHENS.............................................................................................266 1 INTRODUCTION I. TheCosmologicalCharacterofEarlyGreekPhilosophy II. TheTraditionalViewoftheWorld III. Homer IV. Hesiod V. Cosmogony VI. GeneralCharacteristcsofGreekCosmology VII. Physis VIII. MotionandRest IX. TheSecularCharacterofIonianScience X. AllegedOrientalOriginofPhilosophy XI. EgyptianMathematics XII. BabylonianAstronomy XIII. TheScientificChracteroftheEarlyGreek Cosmology XIV. SchoolsofPhilosophy I. The Cosmological Character of Early Greek Philosophy IT was not till the traditional view of the worldand the customary rules of life hadbrokendown, that the Greeks began tofeel the needs whichphilosophies of nature andof conduct seek to satisfy. Nor were those needs felt all at once. The ancestral maxims of conduct were not seriously questionedtill the oldview of nature hadpassedaway; and, for this reason, the earliest philosophers busied themselves mainly with speculations about the worldaroundthem. Indue season, Logic was calledintobeing tomeet a freshwant. The pursuit of cosmological inquiry had brought to light a wide divergence between science and common sense, whichwas itself a problem that demandedsolution, andmoreover constrainedphilosophers tostudy the means of defending their paradoxes against the prejudices of the unscientific. Later still, the prevailing interest inlogical matters raisedthe questionof the originandvalidity of knowledge; while, about the same time, the break-down of traditional morality gave rise to Ethics. The period which 2 precedestheriseofLogic andEthicshasthusadistinctivecharacterofitsown,andmayfitlybetreated apart.1 II. The Traditional View of the World It must, however, be rememberedthat the worldwas already very oldwhenscience andphilosophy began. Inparticular, the Aegean Sea hadbeen the seat of a high civilisation from the Neolithic age onwards, a civilisation as ancient as that of Egypt or of Babylon, andsuperior to either inmost things that matter. It is becoming clearer every day that the Greek civilisation of later days was mainly the revival and continuation of this, though it no doubt receivedcertainnew andimportant elements from the less civilisednorthern peoples whofor a time arrested its development. The original Mediterranean population must have far outnumbered the intruders, and must have assimilated and absorbed them in a few generations, except in a state like Sparta, which deliberately set itself to resist the process. At any rate, it is to the older race we owe Greek Art andGreek Science.2 It is a remarkable fact that every one of the menwhose work we are about to study was an Ionian, except Empedokles of Akragas, and this exception is perhaps more apparent thanreal. Akragas was foundedfrom the Rhodiancolony of Gela, its οἰκιστήςwas himself a Rhodian, andRhodes, thoughofficially Dorian, hadbeena centre of the early Aegeancivilisation. We may fairly assume that the emigrants belongedmainly tothe older populationrather thantothe new Dorianaristocracy. Pythagoras foundedhis society inthe Achaiancity of Kroton, but he himself was anIonianfromSamos. This being so, we must be preparedtofindthat the Greeks of historical times whofirst triedto understandthe world were not at all inthe positionof men setting out ona hithertountroddenpath. The remains of Aegeanart prove that there must have beena tolerably consistent view of the worldin existence already, though we cannot hope to recover it in detail till the records are deciphered. The ceremony representedon the sarcophagus of Hagia Triada implies some quite definite view as tothe state of the dead, andwe may be sure that the Aegeanpeople were as capable of developing theological speculationas were the Egyptians andBabylonians. We shall expect tofindtraces of this inlater days, andit may be saidat once that things like the fragments of Pherekydes of Syros are inexplicable except as survivals of some suchspeculation. There is nogroundfor supposing that this was borrowedfrom Egypt, thoughnodoubt these early civilisations all influencedone another. The Egyptians may have borrowed from Crete as readily as the Cretans from Egypt, and there was a seed of life in the sea civilisationwhichwassomehowlackinginthatofthegreatrivers. Onthe other hand, it is clear that the northerninvaders have assistedthe free development of the Greek genius by breaking upthe powerful monarchies of earlier days and, above all, by checking the growthof a superstitionlike that whichultimately stifledEgypt andBabylon. That there was once a real danger of this is suggested by certain features in the Aegean remains. On the other hand, the 3 worshipof Apolloseems tohave beenbrought from the Northby the Achaians,3 andindeedwhat has beencalledthe Olympian religionwas, sofar as we cansee, derivedmainly from that source. Still, the artistic form it assumedbears the stampof the Mediterraneanpeoples, andit was chiefly inthat form it appealed to them. It could not become oppressive to them as the old Aegean religion might very possibly have done. It was probably due to the Achaians that the Greeks never hada priestly class, and thatmaywellhavehadsomethingtodowiththeriseoffreescienceamongthem. III. Homer We see the working of these influences clearly in Homer. Though he doubtless belongedtothe older race himself andusedits language,4 it is for the courts of Achaianprinces he sings, andthe gods andheroes he celebrates are mostly Achaian.5 That is why we findsofew traces of the traditional view of the worldinthe epic. The gods have become frankly human, andeverything primitive is kept out of sight. There are, of course, vestiges of the early beliefs andpractices, but they are exceptional.6 It has often been noted that Homer never speaks of the primitive custom of purificationfor homicide. The deadheroes are burned, not buried, as the kings of the older race were. Ghosts play hardly any part. Inthe Iliad we