# Talk:Pre-Socratic philosophy

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

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)

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[3] 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.[4].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[5][6] 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.[7][8]

"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"? [9] 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[10] 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)

@Teishin:, I have noticed that you removed text, citing "removed uncited (and erroneous) claim)" [11]. 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,[12] 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)

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? [13] 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)

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)

The version 19:35, 20 May 2024‎ MisterCake of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing article there. The content of the articles are merged together.--Wing (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The article includes the following:
"The pre-Socratics were not atheists; however, they minimized the extent of the gods' involvement in natural phenomena such as thunder or totally eliminated the gods from the natural world."
This is, at the very least, an over-generalisation. For an alternative view, see: History of atheism
By definition, both can't be right. Sadgrove (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)