Talk:Pre-Socratic philosophy

Talk:Pre-Socratic philosophy/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DanTheMan4488.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

On the Origin of pre-Socratic philosophy

The article is almost entirely silent about the origin and sources of pre-Socratic philosophy. Do we have to presume here that the world itself began with the pre-Socratics and thus, in one fine morning, after the creation of the world ex nihilo at around 7th century BC the pre-Socratics began asking philosophical questions and eventually became the "forerunners" of almost all the major disciplines of knowledge, including of course, the natural sciences? Mosesheron (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: No, generally speaking, when there is silence on a topic, you do not have to presume anything. But your main point (silence on the origin and sources of pSp) stands true. We have to address this issue. If I recall correctly, AC Grayling mentioned something about it at his history of philosophy (2019). I will have a look at it as soon as I can. Cinadon36 08:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Clement of Alexandria and Diogenes Laertius said some things about this which might be worth citing. Thomas McEviley's book, The Shape of Ancient Thought would also be a good resource. Teishin (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I added info about the Ionian Enlightenment to address this issue. Teishin (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks about that. But we do need a citation. Evans' History of W. Philosophy and Grayling's history of philosophy do place Ionia as the place philosophy arose, but they do not mention Ionian Enlightenment. As far as I understand, Pre-Socratic Philosophy did not arose from Ionian Enlightenment, but pre-socratic philosophy was a part of Ionian Enlightenment. Awaiting your reply and guidance, Cinadon36 10:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to do some more work on this in the next few days. I have on other philosophy topics run into problems with using Grayling's book as a source. It's a survey book that not only skims ancient philosophy thinly, it oversimplifies it to create a narrative to hold the reader's interest. It's not really a reference book. We need to be using sources that are more-specific to the era. Teishin (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I get your point.Cinadon36 19:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Teishin: might we readdress this issue please? Grayling is a well reputed philosopher and his work is crucial for WP since he does very good job explaining difficult meanings and stories. It is too difficult to stick to academic books and/or summarize them. Maybe we could cite Grayling, at least for a couple of undisputed points. Cinadon36 08:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Grayling's "The History of Philosophy" skims the subject at a rate such that his chapters on individual subjects are shorter and less informative than our Wikipedia articles, and usually greatly so. What I've seen of it is that it aims to be entertaining. The publisher's own description of the book says so. So his breezy stories and narratives, stripped of a great deal of detail, all too often aren't really all that accurate. For parts of the subject matter I know well, I find reading that book to be nauseating because it so distorts its subjects by leaving so much out and over-generalizing and over summarizing. Teishin (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

How about the IEP [1] and the SEP [2] instead? Teishin (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will not use Grayling but certainly his book will be much more informative than our article will ever be. Chapter on presocratics covers many pages.(pp 9-57). Being entertaining and relatively easy to digest, is a fact but I cant see why this is a drawback. Thanks for the links, I am very fond of both IEP and SEP, but I am a little hesitant to use them since they are tertiary sources. Well, we ll see how it goes. Thanks for the advice. Cinadon36 17:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am of the exact opposite opinion regarding what source is more informative. It seems to me that Wikipedia is already a much better source than Grayling's book is. Yes, his chapter on the presocratics is about 46 pages, but it isn't appropriate to compare that linear text to just Wikipedia's article on the presocratics; it must be compared to Wikipedia's hypertext collection of articles on the presocratics, which includes all of the articles on the presocratic schools and all of the articles on the presocratic philosophers. I've previously compared what Grayling says in this book about the Hellenistic philosophies. It's full of serious omissions and quite a few errors. Wikipedia blows Grayling away as a reference. Wikipedia's only weakness with respect to Grayling's book is that it isn't as fun to read. Grayling's book happens to be a tertiary source, too. Use of the IEP and SEP for philosophy topics is fine.Teishin (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Cinadon36 11:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Take it easy @Teishin:. Nobody is in a hurry here.Your back is far more important. Cinadon36 13:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources

A nice one. James Warren (5 December 2014). Presocratics. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-49337-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Cinadon36 10:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Also Barnes, Jonathan (1987). Early Greek Philosophy. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-044461-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Cinadon36 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Also https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195146875.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195146875-e-16 Cinadon36 11:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Removed text

I have removed the following text from the article, since I felt it was not sited in the proper section. Must be added somewhere else.

Diogenes Laërtius divided the physiologoi into two groups: the Ionian, begun by Anaximander, and the Italiote, begun by Pythagoras. Modern interest in early Greek philosophy can be traced back to 1573, when Henri Estienne collected a number of pre-Socratic fragments in Poesis Philosophica (Ποίησις Φιλόσοφος). Hermann Diels popularized the term "pre-Socratic" in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (The Fragments of the Pre-Socratics) in 1903. The term "pre-Sokratic" [sic] was used as early as George Grote's Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates in 1865. Edouard Zeller was also important in dividing thought before and after Socrates. Major analyses of pre-Socratic thought have been made by Gregory Vlastos, Jonathan Barnes, Karl Popper, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

References

I will think of it later on. Cinadon36 10:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we include Sophists among PreSocratics?

I will try to find how RS are treating this matter.

• Warren Jonathan, Presocratics (2014). Page 6

"I have also chosen not to extend my story to include the group of thinkers oft en referred to as “Sophists”, such as Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiphon, Prodicus and the like.8 Th eir interests are primarily political and ethical, and they oft en focus on questions of persuasion, rhetoric, justice and power. Although there are clear continuities between their thoughts and some of the philosophers I shall consider – Democritus, for example – they can also be seen as marking a new and distinct philosophical moment, and the most illuminating context in which to place them is among the familiar discussions of Athens in the classical period: its historians, playwrights and poets, and, most notable of all, Socrates himself.

Please do not answer this section yet. While studying other authors, I will add their opinions here, and when I am done, we can talk it over. Hopefully in a couple of weeks. Thanks. Cinadon36 14:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how we can choose not to. Warren Jonathan has the authorial privilege of choosing what to cover. We don't. Besides, the case of Protagoras would be highly contentious, as ancient authors called him a philosopher. Remember, our use of "sophist" derives from Plato's opinions driving his definitions. Teishin (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This Oxford handbook includes sophists among presocratics. Cinadon36 08:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pre-Socratic philosophy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll post my comments here as I work on the review. I may review the sections out of order. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is an excellent, succinct summary of the article.
  • Thanks for reviewing the article! Cinadon36 13:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, I think apeiron and nous should be italicized.
  • Quite right, fixed.[3] Cinadon36 13:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• The pre-Socratics invented the basic concepts of Western civilization: freedom, democracy, autonomy, and rationalism. This claim appears in the lead and in Reception, I wasn't able to see the source (Barnes) to verify it. I'm sure it's in the source but the article does not back it up, in historical background it actually says that democracy was a factor in the rise of philosophy. I would either remove this claim or add more info on the pre-Socratic ideas of freedom, democracy, etc.

Yes, I reworded the sentence, since it had to be backed by the article, regardless of a reference. [4]. Now, as for the text at Reception, it is based on Sandywell 1996, p 6 and 7. Here is a "fragment" :) from p.6

The outcome was an image of Greek antiquity as an aesthetic ideal—a myth of Greece where Hellenism was seen not merely as one important creative civilization, but as the very embodiment of ‘civilized virtue’ itself, the exemplar of cultural autonomy and ‘health’, a supreme ideal of human existence to be imitated by other nations striving to achieve ‘greatness’ and self-determination. In its extreme Romantic formulations, the Hellenic ideal imagined a civilization which folded the realms of ‘truth’, ‘beauty’, and ‘virtue’ into a harmonious totality. Ancient Greek culture was thus idealized and elevated into a sacred icon of ‘Western civilization’: for many—like Kant and Hegel, but not the ‘pagan’ Goethe—civilization was simply Greek culture made progressive by the addition of modern science and the Christian ideal of spiritual freedom. ‘Hellenism’, in sum, became an instrument of national self-identity and moral reflection.

I thought I had to summarize the text of the Sandywell in one or two sentences. Cinadon36 14:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Pythagoras created a religion-like cult Do the sources call it a cult? The word cult can have negative connotations, I would change to something like religious community or religious sect.

Correct, changed to sect [5] Cinadon36 14:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Terminology

• Greek terms: In "Terminology" you provide the Greek letters for physiologoi and physikoi, but not for theologoi or mythologoi. There are obviously a lot of Greek terms in the article, I would either provide the Greek letters for all of them or none of them.

I removed the greek words. I didn't think they provide any meaningful narrative or data to the reader. They also might distract a reader struggling with new words. I found these words to the article when I started editing, I should have removed them, then. Anyway, done. [6] Cinadon36 17:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Cosmos or kosmos- Greek for the universe, implying there is order it- it is not chaotic. Per WP:MOSDASH, you should use an en dash (–) here, right now you the sentence uses hyphens.

Done [7] Cinadon36 17:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also, cosmos is capitalized in some places in the article and sometimes not, I'm not sure which is correct but it should be consistent. Same with Arche/arche.

Done [8] Cinadon36 17:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• (implying teleology, ironically enough considering Pre-Socratic's lack of teleology) I would remove this, pointing out irony seems unencyclopedic.

I though it would be a nice pun, that could make the reader smile, but judging retrospectively, I failed badly :) Removed.[9] Cinadon36 17:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• An important term that is met in the thought of several pre-Socratic philosophers is Arche. Depending on the context, it can take various related meanings. It could mean the beginning or origin with the undertone that there is an effect on the things to follow. Also it might mean a principle or a cause (especially in Aristotelian tradition) I think this would fit better in the "General features" section.

Yeap, I concur. Done. [10] Cinadon36 17:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Doxography

• Doxography: I would change the name of this section to "Sources", doxography is a rare word that might confuse readers (it confused me!).

I was also confused when I first read the article! Done! [11] Cinadon36 17:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• with final result scholars quarrelling on the various possible explanations I would remove this, you could end the sentence after the obscure language they use.

Yes, seems redundant. Done.[12].Cinadon36 17:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• They attributed the letter A if a fragment is a testimonia I would define testimonia here.

I applyied this fix[13], is it sufficient? Cinadon36 18:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Historical background

• Sometimes you use BC and sometimes BCE, best to just use one form, either one is fine.

Fixed (everywhere in the article) [14] Cinadon36 18:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Much of their philosophical thought was a reply, either endorsing or attacking, or modifying previous pre-Socratic arguments. I would remove this sentence, it doesn't really fit in with rest of the paragraph, which is about travel in Greece.

probably you are right, done [15] Cinadon36 18:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• one can notice a shy attempt towards organizing beliefs using some form of rationalization I would remove the world "shy", to me it's a little unencyclopedic.

done [16] Cinadon36 18:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• For reference #29 I could not find that information on pages 37 or 38, is on 39? Or maybe a page number error?

My wrong, it is pp 70 and 71. fixed [17] Cinadon36 19:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

General features

• This is a great section, really helps to put the rest of the article in context.

Thanks! Cinadon36 19:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• As the first philosophers: probably should be Western philosophers, Indian philosophers like Aruni predated the pre-Socratics.

I removed it, it seems a repetition. [18] Cinadon36 19:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• they coined new terms and concepts such as rhythm, symmetry, analogy, deductionism, reductionism, mathematics and others. Are you saying that the pre-Socratics invented mathematics? I don't think that is correct.

Hm, you are correct. Actually, reference says they coined "mathematization of nature". Fixed it. I was carried away maybe because Thales was the first to make some generalizations on geometry. [19] Cinadon36 19:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Based on these features they reached their most significant achievement: by the use of reason and evidence, they invented argument. That is a bold claim! Would you mind providing the quote from Barnes where he says that?

Hm...Indeed, that may have been a long shot. But isnt far from what Barnes is saying. Have a look here at section II First Philosophy pp 16-24. At p=22 Barnes says: "But my point is not that the Presocratics offered good arguments but simply that they offered arguments." From p 22 tp p 24. he says that they used arguments extensively. Also at p 24

What, then, is the substance of the claim that the Presocratics were champions of reason and rationality? It is this: they offered reasons for their opinions, they gave arguments for their views. They did not utter ex cathedra pronouncements. Perhaps that seems an unremarkable achievement. It is not. On the contrary, it is the most remarkable and the most praiseworthy of the three achievements I have rehearsed. Those who doubt the fact should reflect on the maxim of George Berkeley, the eighteenth-century Irish philosopher: All men have opinions, but few think.

I just wanted to emphasize the utilization of argument. But as Barnes also says, Aristotle was the first to study arguments in depth. Anyway, I fixed it adding "they changed the course of human thought from myth to philosophy and science" based on Barnes p22 "It cannot be said that the Presocratics established a single clear sense for the term logos or that they invented the concept of reason or of rationality. But their use of the term logos constitutes the first step towards the establishment of a notion which is central to science and philosophy". What do you think? Is it ok? There is a continous debate whether pre-Socratics were scientists, but it is an attributed opinion, so...I guess it is ok.Cinadon36 19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• A second phase - the Eleatics - resisted the idea that we can become wiser. That is very interesting, could you provide more info about that idea in the section on the Eleatics?

Interesting but most prob wrong. What is more important, it is not the characteristic of Eleatics. So I changed it. [20] :) Cinadon36 20:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Socratic philosophers

• I think it would be nice to illustrate this section with pictures of some of the philosophers, for example the infobox images from Pythagorus and Democritus.

I resisted the temptation to add images of philosophers, since they do not add anything significant to the understanding of their philosophy or its significance. But, I guess one or two wont be a problem.[21]Cinadon36 20:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Or two [22] Cinadon36 08:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• He is considered the first philosopher since he was the first to use reason: I think this should be "first Western philosopher."

Done. [23] Cinadon36 21:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• When talking about the Eleatics, Sophists, and Pluralists, sometimes you use "What Is" and sometimes "what-is", I would choose one or the other.

Done [24] Cinadon36 21:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Peri Physeos and the Katharmoi. Could you provide translations for these terms?

Done [25] Cinadon36 05:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• he thought philosophy should be kept for those who had the appropriate intellect to understand it: Would you mind providing a quote from the source to back up this claim?

Quite remarkable, isnt it?

Plato’s objections to the sophists’ taking pay are, first, that they could not say exactly what they were selling or show its value; Plato himself believed that knowing the essence of a thing and being able to give an account of it were essential for a philosopher, and he criticizes almost all who came before him for failing to do this. Plato also argues that by accepting pay, the sophists were obligated to sell their knowledge to anyone who could pay for it, whereas he felt that the higher levels of education should be reserved for those with superior intelligence and training.7 This suggests that the sophists were relatively egalitarian in their teaching, although we must remember that those who studied with them (like those who associated with Socrates) must have led a life of leisure

Cinadon36 05:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• But an argument could be made that this statements underlines that knowledge is only relevant to humankind. Would be better to attribute this statement with a source, i.e. "Some scholars argue that this statement..."

I prefer not tbh because there is no debate, as I see it, on which interpretation is correct. If that were the case, we should attribute each interpretation to a scholar (or more scholars). But since it is widely accepted that there are many (to or more) interpretations, I think mentioning scholars will not add anything of significance.Cinadon36 05:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Topics

• While Pythagoras and Empedocles linked their self-proclaimed wisdom to their divine status: The source says that Pythagorus and Empedocles claimed to be divinely inspired, not that they were themselves gods. I would change "divine status" to "divinely inspired status".

Done [26] Cinadon36 05:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Many philosophers of the pre-Socratic and classical era were also physicians, such as Empedocles, Democritus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, Plato, Aristotle and others. Are you sure about this? I was not aware that Plato was a physician.

It is been removed, it is in the garage and pending rephrasing. Look at the discussion at Talk Page. My understanding is that, during those days, philosophers were also some kind of healersor studied human body as a part of nature.. There was no definite boundary between philosophy, medicine, or other disciplines. Just as nowadays, where lots of social media users have an expert opinion on everything (including me of course). :) Cinadon36 05:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• But how it all started? How did the substance of the universe arose? Pre-socratics were as puzzled with this question as modern scientists. This is a bit informal, I would change to something like, "The pre-Socratics did not offer explanations of the origin of the universe."

I removed it altogether. I feel it does not provide any meaningful information. I had placed the question in an attempt to make the article more interesting read, but that is not so encyclopedic...[27] Cinadon36 05:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• filled with fears and misery: Seems non-neutral to me, I would remove that phrase.

Done. [28] Cinadon36 05:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• to seek for a unitary archai: What is the difference between arche and archai?

merely phonetic reconstruction of the same word. [29] changed. Cinadon36 05:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Anaximandros offered the: Anaximander?

lol, Anaximandros is the modern greek name for anaximander. My mistake, fixed. [30] Cinadon36 05:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• The pre-Socratics seemed indifferent to the concept of teleology: This conflicts with the earlier statement that While some pre-Socratics were trying to find alternatives to divinity, others were setting the foundation of explaining the universe in terms of teleology.

Correct, I rephrazed. [31]. Most presocratics were indifferent to teleology, seems more accurate. Cinadon36 07:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• 449-450 Xenophanes also advanced 449-450? Page numbers?

Yes, sorry, fixed. [32] Cinadon36 07:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Reception and legacy

• The chronolgical order of the "antiquity" section seems a bit off, it discusses Socrates, then Cicero, then Xenophon, then Plato and Aristotle. I would move Cicero to the end since he came later.

Hm, I get the problem. I applied this fix[33]. The reason is that, Socrates, Xenophon and Cicero, represent one line of viewing pre-Socratics, while Aristotelian tradition represents another line. I hope the addition of the sentence, minimizes the confusion. Cinadon36 07:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• The reason was, according to Xenophon, Socrates acknowledges that we can people can not understand the nature of Cosmos. I think this should have a source.

Done[34] Also, I rephrased. Cinadon36 08:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Even though Socrates was accused of impiety since he continued to examine pre-Socratics opinions on nature, and sentenced to death, according to Diopeithes Degree Can we remove this sentence? Doesn't seem relevant to the theme of the pre-Socratics' reception.

Done, I found it impressive when I was reading the text, so I was carried away and inserted it.[35] Cinadon36 08:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• The materialistic Stoics The source doesn't say materialistic and I'm not sure that's the best description of Stoic physics, I would remove the word materialistic.

Correct.[36].Cinadon36 08:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think the link for McCarty 1999 is wrong, it took me to the Oxford Handbook of Atheism.

Yes, removed [37] Cinadon36 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I like that in the modern reception you only focus on a few important thinkers, you don't waste time giving the opinion of every modern philosopher.

Yes, it would have been a mess trying to add every modern philosopher. Cinadon36 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

More to follow! Loving this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Can't wait! Cinadon36 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

GA criteria

• Prose: A lot better than I could do writing in a second language! I've made some copy edits and I'll do another read through before I pass the article, shouldn't be an issue.
• Verifiable: Excellent referencing, just a few dubious claims which I pointed out in the comments above.
• Broad: Yes, the article is well laid out and thorough.
• Neutral: For the most part, just a few issues in the comments.
• Stable: You are still working through the pre-Socratic/Presocratic issue, it's just a hyphen so either way is fine with me.
• Illustrated: Yes, I'd just like to see images of some of the philosophers.

OK I'm sorry for the long review, I think this is an extremely important article so it's worth taking the time to get it right. I'll place the article on hold for seven days so you can work through the comments, let me know if you disagree with anything I said. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Definitely the article is improved by now. I have added two illustrations. Unless the pictures illustrates a more or less significant characteristic of a philosopher, I am hesitant on adding it. I have added laughing Democritus and the Empedocles fall into the volcano. The hyphen issue depends on the MOS- and to be honest- I do not really mind, either way is fine. There is another issue with the (see talk page) but I think it is a minor one and we are close to a consensus. Cinadon36 08:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You work quickly!! Article meets all of the criteria now except for stability :) I'll wait a day or two until your discussion with Teishin is complete, then probably pass the article. I agree with you about the hyphen, it's just a cosmetic issue and not too important. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Teishin: Since you seem to specialize in Greek philosophy, please let me know if there's anything else we need to do before closing this review, I appreciate your input. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I specialize in Hellenistic philosophy. I'm trying to eke out more time to work on this article. I had a back injury a week ago and I'm rather behind on things because of it. I anticipate getting caught up this weekend.Teishin (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that :( No rush! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm I don't want to prolong this review unnecessarily, looks like it has been 7 days since I placed it on hold. In my opinion it meets the GACR so I am going to close the review as pass, of course I'm sure there is room for improvement. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cerebellum, you have been a fantastic reviewer and I am anticipating Teishin to make his comments/changes on the article and further improve this article! Cheers! Cinadon36 12:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Presocratic or pre-Socratic?

The article should be internally consistent, as well as consistent with the title in terms of punctuation. It's clear that the hyphenated form is much more used in reliable sources[38] so that's what I would recommend for this article. (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Socratic should be used. Fixed.[39].Cinadon36 17:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You need to add "Presocratic" and "Pre-Socratic" to the ngram. Uppercase unhyphenated Presocratic wins (from c. 1983) and is what is used in Robin Waterfield's First Philosophers that I happen to have at hand. Srnec (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing some books available to me:

• Oxford Handbook Curd 2008, Presocratics
• Sandywell 1996: Presocratics
• Warren 2014: Presocratics
• Cambridge Companion by Long: mostly Presocratic
• Laks: Laks gives a different meaning to Pre-scoratic and presocratics. Presocratics refers to the modern concept of presocratics.

Seems to me that we should turn it to presocratics. Change the title as well. Cinadon36 08:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Google News says the hyphenated form is 10x as common[40][41] But those sources won't show up in NGRAMS which counts printed sources only. On Google Scholar also the hyphenated form is twice as common.[42][43]

"Early Greek philosophy" is listed as a synonym in the lead even though it is much more common term in NGRAMs than "pre(-)socratic philosophy". (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is due to "noise" or not. In any case, Laks 2018, p=31 says "Within this perspective, it is understandable that the phrase “the first philosophers of Greece” derives rather from the tradition of Anglo- Saxon historiography, by opposition to the “Continental” interpretation of the Presocratics". Hegel, Heidegger and Nietzsche were influenced and shaped the modern perspective on Presocratics far more than anyone other philosophers, as far as I can understand. These were continental philosophers. But anyway, I am neutral on this issue. I found the article as "Pre-socratic philosophy", and I just added "early greek philosophy" in the content at the main body and intro. But I thought I shouldn't be too radical. On the other hand, the term "presocratic" is more handy to use in the text. There is room for debate on this issue, and both versions are correct imo.Cinadon36 09:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Before I 'd move to changing the name of the page to "Presocratic philosophy" I 'd like to be sure there are no objections. So, are there any, everyone? Also, @Buidhe:, what do you mean be "Presocratic(s) would need to be capped"? [44] Cinadon36 03:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP:NCCAPS the word "Presocratic" is usually capitalized in reliable sources (at least according to NGRAMS), so it should be capitalized in the article. However, I would still oppose moving because if you look at all the capitalization variations, the hyphenated versions are more common put together[45] To propose a move you should go to WP:Requested moves and follow the instructions for a controversial/contested move. (t · c) buidhe 16:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:DOCTCAPS it cannot be "Presocratic" or "Pre-Socratic." It can be "presocratic" or "pre-Socratic."Teishin (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• We should follow RS and ignore the MOS. The idea that we cannot use what scholars routinely use is absurd. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Srnec it may then be useful to take up that cause at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Ancient_Greek_philosophy_and_MOS:DOCTCAPS Teishin (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

If we can sort it out and agree here at talk page, why should we take it to other venues or help-pages? As I see it, there are two questions here.

A)What should be the title of the article be? Presocratic (or something similar) philosophy Vs Early Greek philosophy
B)Should it be Presocratic or pre-Socratic.

RS should be the the guiding star(s) and wherever there is conflict, we could discuss it at this talk page. If we wont reach an agreement (which is natural"), then ask other editors for their help.

As for B)it is clear that RS are using the term "Presocratic", with P being a capital letter. I had another look to RS:

• Warren The term “Presocratic” is a modern classification not found in the ancient sources themselves
• Cambridge Companion Long "Thus far I have refrained from calling the early Greek philosophers by the familiar term Presocratics"
• Sandywell 1996 "today has the detailed knowledge of the Presocratic texts"
• Oxford Handbook, Curd "The figures who are studied in this book, the Presocratic philosophers"
• Barnes 1987 This period is commonly called the This period is commonly called the 'Presocratic' phase of Greek thought. The epithet is inaccurate, for Socrates was bqrn in 470 BC and died in 399, so that many of the 'Presocratic' philosophers were in fact contemporaries of Socrates. But the label is well entrenched and it would be idle to attempt to evict it. The Presocratic period itself divides

As for A) my impression is that most RS- but not all- are using the term Presocratics. Ngram are not that reliable tools to tell which term is most usable, they only detect big differences. Cinadon36 05:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia's manual of style requirements dominate usage in reliable sources and they dominate editors' ad hoc opinion. If we want "Presocratic" then the issue should be taken up at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Ancient_Greek_philosophy_and_MOS:DOCTCAPS because there are similar issues with other terms from Greek philosophy and there needs to be a change to the MOS for this. Teishin (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I am taking the discussion over there, thanks for the link, even though I do not think MOS dominates RS. MOS is wiki-user-based, whereas RS are peer-reviewed. Anyway,: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Presocratic vs presocratic vs pre-Socratic at article Pre-Socratic philosophy Cinadon36 13:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent removals

@Teishin:, I have noticed that you removed text, citing "removed uncited (and erroneous) claim)" [46]. But it is obvious that there is a citation, it is in the next sentence. Now, being erroneous, I do not know, I am just transferring info from a RS. Also, for the next removal,[47] it would be better to introduce the word "experiment" and "observation" as they are crucial advances of early philosophy, a chapter is dedicated in discussing these subject. Also, while it might be true that "there was not experiment as we know it, removing claim", experiments did happened, and the world is used by a RS to describe the advances of presocratics. Cinadon36 20:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The cited source itself contradicts what was in the text. In the first case it says "Thus Empedocles, Democritus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Alcmaeon, Philolaus, Diogenes of Apollonia, Plato, Aristotle, and Theophrastus took an active interest in subjects we commonly associate with medicine". That's not a claim that these philosophers were physicians or even that they studied medicine. Those are erroneous claims. For example, I take an active interest in medicine, but I'm no doctor nor have I studied medicine. In the second case the source contradicts what was in the text, saying: "The use of the word ‘‘experiment’’ reminds us of that old question as to whether the Greeks had a concept of experiment and carried out experiments at any scale. Early medical writers certainly had no elaborate theory of experimentation". Saying that the pre-Socratics developed experimentation doesn't fit with our current concept of what that means. One would need to qualify such a statement. Teishin (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

First issue

Text of RS says: Making too rigid a use of these concepts presents a serious danger of misrepresenting the views the main protagonists in early Greek thought themselves had about the disciplines or intellectual contexts in which they positioned themselves. Moreover, it would be quite misleading to present the relationship between doctors and philosophers solely in terms of interaction between science and philosophy, the empirical and the theoretical, the practical and the systematical, or observation and speculation; for this would ignore the philosophical, speculative, theoretical, or systematizing aspects of Greek medicine and science, as well as the extent to which empirical research and observation was part of the activities of people whom we have come to regard as philosophers. Thus Empedocles, Democritus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Alcmaeon, Philolaus, Diogenes of Apollonia, Plato, Aristotle, and Theophrastus took an active interest in subjects we commonly associate with medicine, such as the anatomy and the physiology of the human body, embryology and reproduction, youth and old age, respiration, the causes of disease and of the effects of food, drink, and drugs on the body.....It would be quite wrong to regard this perception as just a later, anachronistic distortion or to believe that these medical interests of philosophers were nothing more than eccentric curiosity. To the Greek thinkers, these areas represented aspects of natural and human reality just as interesting and significant as the movements of the celestial bodies or the origins of earthquakes, and at least equally revealing of the underlying universal principles of stability and change. And it would be equally wrong to retroject the Aristotelian distinction between theoretical and practical sciences to the earlier period and to imply that while doctors were primarily concerned with practical application, philosophers’ interests in the medical area were limited to theoretical study or the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake without extending to clinical or therapeutic practice. Some are known to have put their ideas into practice, for example, Empedocles, who seems to have been engaged in considerable therapeutic activity, or Democritus, who seems to have carried out anatomical experiments on a significant scale..

Text in the article: Many philosophers of the pre-Socratic and classical era were also physicians or studied subjects associated with medicine, such as Empedocles, Democritus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, Plato, Aristotle and others" I do not find it very far from the article but I 'd make another suggestion. Would it be ok if we rephrase "Many philosophers of the pre-Socratic and classical era were explored medicine-associated fields, such as anatomy, physiology, diseases and others as a continuation of exploring nature" Cinadon36 04:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Second issue

ALlow me to explain that there is no contradiction. text of RS---> "The use of the word ‘‘experiment’’ reminds us of that old question as to whether the Greeks had a concept of experiment and carried out experiments at any scale. Early medical writers certainly had no elaborate theory of experimentation; they did, however, clearly realize that deliberate, focused manipulation of natural things or states of affairs could provide information not readily available to passive observation. An interesting example is provided by the author of the embryological Hippocratic work On the Nature of the Child. At some point in his discussion, he argues that the human fetus is surrounded by a kind of skin or membrane that has an umbilicus in the middle, through which the fetus breathes; the fetus’s growth takes place in stages that are comparable to the growth stages of plants. He then supports his statement with a reference to the following experiment"

The above text, does not exclude "experiments" from ancient greece. it just states that they were in a more primitive state than todays' the formal way of experimenting today. But they were experiments nonetheless. So the phrase ", allowed the first experimental observations" seems decent. How could we rephrase it to address your concerns? Cinadon36 04:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Meh, on second though, does not seem that important. Besides of Democritus, primitive forms of experiment were carried by lesser known philosophers. Apart from Oxf handbook, I didnt find any other RS (talking about Presocratics as a whole) talking about it. Cinadon36 07:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a common feature of the pre-Socratic philosophy was the attempt to explain the Kosmos without invoking theism? Barnes p16-17 : "Still less was it a series of events determined by the will- or the caprice - of the gods. The Presocratics were not, so far as we can tell, atheists: they allowed the gods into their brave new world, and some of them attempted to produce an improved, rationalized, theology in place of the anthropomorphic divinities of the Olympian pantheon. But they removed some of the traditional functions from the gods. Thunder was explained sCientifically, in naturalistic terms - it was no longer a noise .6 INTRODUCTION made by a minatory Zeus. Iris was the goddess.ofthe rainbow, but Xenophanes insisted that Iris or the rainbow was in reality nothing but a multicoloured cloud. Most importantly, the Presocratic gods -like the gods of Aristotle and even of that arch theist Plato - do not interfere with the natural world. The world is orderly without being divinely run. Its order is intrinsic: the internal principles of nature are sufficient to explain its structure and its history. For the happenings that constitute the world's history are not mere brute events, to be recorded and admired. They are structured events which fit together and interconnect. And the patterns of their interconnections provide the truly explanatory account of the world.
  • ALT1:... that preeminent philosopher Karl Popper traced the roots of western civilization to pre-Socratic philosophy? In an important article Back to Presocratics (1958), Karl Popper writes: "There can be little doubt that the Greek tradition of philosophical criticism had its main source in Ionia ... It thus leads the tradition which created the rational or scientific attitude, and with it our Western civilization, the only civilization, which is based upon science (though, of course, not upon science alone". Source: Original text can be found in Vamvacas 2013, as in article.

Improved to Good Article status by Cinadon36 (talk). Self-nominated at 09:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC).

• A long, recently promoted good article and I don't disagree with that decision. I have two small suggestions on the article content: the statement "The pre-Socratic intellectual revolution liberated the human mind from the mythical world and initiated a march towards reason and scientific thought that yielded modern western philosophy and science." might come off as tendentious to a general reader—DYK articles must be neutral—and would probably benefit from having an authority for that claim stated in the text itself, and (very minor) footnote 140 with the David Sedley comment needs tidying. Similarities detected on Earwig are just shared citations from the looks of it. I do just have a couple of problems with the hooks:
  On ALT0, (1) Some straightforward stylistic points: "the" needs to be deleted from "the pre-Socratic philosophy", and "cosmos" should be spelled normally since it just redirects to cosmos anyway and isn't explained as being something substantively different from the English term.
  (2) More generally, though, I think the word "theism" might be misleading: theism has modern baggage and refers to a kind of belief system, but Barnes's point is more straightforwardly that they (and "even ... that archtheist Plato") don't refer to the intervention of the gods in their accounts of nature.
  (3) Optional suggestion. For general reader interest I think it would be worth including Barnes's argument on the previous page that this is the earliest instance of this kind of thinking. This is already noted in the article ("The pre-Socratics were the first to attempt to provide reductive explanations for a plethora of natural phenomena.") Taking account of all that, I would propose a hook like: "... that pre-Socratic philosophy included some of the earliest attempts to explain the cosmos as an ordered system without reference to the gods?".
  ALT1 looks OK, but instead of the perhaps POV phrase "preeminent philosopher" I would simply say "the philosopher", and "Western" in "Western civilization" should be capitalized and the phrase linked to the article at Western culture. I'd prefer ALT0 if adjusted per at least (1) and (2). Phew! —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 20:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Nizolan:, and I must admit your points have troubled me during reshaping the article. As for your first suggestion, on the "pS intellectual revolution", I wouldnt be happy with attributing it to a specific scholars, since they are widely held by the field's scholars. But you are right, it is an opinion and not a fact, so I applied this change.[48] On Sedley, I removed the note, I am not really fan of having "hidden pieces of info" in the notes. Since his opinion is not the mainstream, I kept it out of the article.[49]. I am not an expert in style, so, I follow blidly all suggestions regarding this matter- removed "the" from "the presocratics"[50] Oh! you meant form the hook! lol! Yes, your suggestion is much better. I like it. As for ALT1 suggestion, I also agree on ALT1---> "that philosopher Karl Popper traced the roots of western civilization to pre-Socratic philosophy?. I also lean towards ALT0. Thanks again Nizolan! Cinadon36 07:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• ALT2: "... that pre-Socratic philosophy included some of the earliest attempts to explain the cosmos as an ordered system without reference to the gods?"
• ALT3: "... that the philosopher Karl Popper traced the roots of Western civilization to pre-Socratic philosophy?"

Thanks Cinadon36, I wasn't suggesting that it was actually a tendentious viewpoint, just that (speaking as someone involved with academic history) phrases like "march towards reason and scientific thought" tend to set off alarm bells sometimes, justifiably or not. Since you've agreed, I'm approving the two reformulated hooks above, with a preference for ALT2. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 21:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Nizolan:, nice wiki-meeting you btw! Cinadon36 06:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Platonism et al are .. what?

The article says, "The philosophical movements of Platonism, Cynicism, Cyrenaicism, Aristotelianism, Pyrrhonism, Epicureanism, Academic skepticism, and Stoicism, a philosophical era that stretched to 100 BCE succeeded the pre-Socratics." Notice there is no verb, or indeed any predicate to the sentence? I'm assuming the editor who wrote this meant to add a phrase like, "... represent the Second Age of Greek Philosophy." I don't want to change it without asking, because I'm not philosophy literate (and don't have a source, which really should be supplied).

Isn't Stoicism a Roman rather than Greek philosophy? IAmNitpicking (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks IAmNitpicking for your comment. Is it better now? [51] Cinadon36 02:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. That's pellucidly clear. (I felt like being archaic.) IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

which was the first to discover the earth is spherical?

This article currently claims Anaximander and Parmenides were the first to claim the earth is spherical. Which was it? This should be addressed. -- LightSpectra (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)