Presocratic Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #103

by Catherine Rowett

Generations of philosophers, both ancient and modern, have traced their inspiration back to the Presocratics. Part of the fascination stems from the fact that little of what they wrote survives. Here Osborne invites her readers to dip their toes into the fragmentary remains of thinkers from Thales to Pythagoras, Heraclitus to Protagoras, and to try to reconstruct the moves that they were making, to support stories that Western philosophers and historians of philosophy like to tell about their past.

This book covers the invention of western introducing to us the first thinkers to explore ideas about the nature of reality, time, and the origin of the universe.

About the Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Classics, Reference, Ebooks, Ancient

176 pages, Paperback

First published April 22, 2004

About the author

Dr. Catherine Joanna Rowett, who previously published under the name Catherine Osborne from 1979 to 2011, is a philosopher. Currently, she is Professor of Philosophy at the University of East Anglia. She is also a former Member of the European Parliament representing the Green Party of England and Wales.

Rowett is known in particular for her work on Greek Philosophy, especially the Pre-Socratic philosophers.

Reviews

[Seyed Hashemi · Rating 4 out of 5]

«همچنان‌که فیلسوفان پیشاسقراطی تعظیم‌کنان خارج می‌شوند و افلاطون برای کارگردانی نمایش بعدی این مجموعه وارد می‌شود، سوفسطائیان در پردۀ آخر همه را حیرت‌زده می‌کنند.»
- از متن کتاب

0- چگونه می‌توان درباب ریشه‌ها تامل نکرد و آسوده‌خاطر بود؟

1- واقعا نمی‌دونم از کجا باید شروع کنم؛ شاید این هم نمودی از «مسئله آغاز» است. زبان از کجا آغاز شد؟ اولین سوالی که انسان پرسید چه بود؟ اولین دغدغه‌ها؟ چرا؟ چگونه؟ برای چه؟
پس شد، «مسئله آغاز».
2- چرا پیشاسقراطی‌ها؟ (لطفا این پیوستار تاریخی را گوشۀ ذهن داشته باشید که: 5قرن پیش از میلاد مسیح و قبل از سه‌گانۀ مشهورِ سقراط-افلاطون-ارسطو، یکسری آدم بوده اند که فضول بودن. به اونا می‌گیم پیشاسقراطی‌ها.)
وقتی اندکی با متون افلاطون و ارسطو درگیر شدم، برایم مسئله شده بود که اینا دارن با کی حرف می‌زنن؟ چرا گرگیاس و هیپیاس مخاطب افلاطون/سقراط اند؟ اصلا چرا باید دیالوگ کرد؟ مگه کسی قبل از افلاطون بوده؟
یعنی بخوام ساده بگم، اگر بخواهیم دیالوگ‌های افلاطون و دغدغه‌های ارسطو را بفهمیم، شناخت پیشاسقراطی‌ها از اهمیت بسیاری برخوردارند. اصلا بیاید قبول کنیم که نمی‌شه جهان فلسفه از قله آغاز بشود. یعنی باید پیشینه‌ای موجود باشد. مثل شعر کلاسیکِ فارسی. بیایید بپذیریم که نمی‌شود شعر فارسی با رودکی شروع شده باشد و این چنین در قله باشد. به احتمال قریب به یقین، بسیاری شاعر بوده اند پیش از رودکی که شعر فارسی را سامان داده اند که اولین شاعری که یک مجموعه قابل قبول ازش برای ما مانده است، چنین بر قله باشد؛ ماجرای فلسفه نیز همین است.
در یکی از مهم‌ترین گذارهای تاریخی غرب، که گذار «از Mythos به Logos» بوده است، می‌توان برای پیشاسقراطی‌ها نقشی اساسی قائل شد. خیلی ساده اگر بخوام این گذار را تفسیر کنم(قطعا زیادی نقص داره این تصویر) جهان Mythos یا اسطوره‌ای را با تراژدی‌نویسان، حماسه‌سرایان و داستان‌های الهه‌ها و خدایان می‌شناسیم. در این دوران رخدادهای طبیعی، ریشۀ دنیا و بسیاری سوال دیگر با ارجاع به اسطوره‌ها حل می‌شد. اما در جهان Logos (با تسامح عقلانیت را معادل لوگوس بدانید) این عقلانیت و تفکر بود که سعی می‌کرد به این سنخ از سوال‌ها پاسخ بدهد. در این گذار فلاسفه پیشاسقراطی، نظیر پارمنیدس، هراکلیتوس و فیثاغورث اهمیت بسیاری دارند.
الان سعی کردم خلاصه‌ای از اهمیت پیشاسقراطی‌ها که خودم درک کردم رو اینجا بنویسم.

3- خب اپسیلونی از اهمیت این دوره گفتم، حالا این کتاب چه در چنته داره؟ سری کتاب‌های A Very Short Introduction to که انتشارات دانشگاه آکسفورد چاپ می‌کند، یکی از تراش‌یافته‌ترین و حرفه‌ای‌ترین متونِ مقدماتی‌ای است که می‌توانید برای آشنایی با حوزه‌های مختلف بهش رجوع کنید. نشر ماهی با سرویراستاری احمدرضا تقاء مجلدهایی از این مجموعه را با عنوان «مختصر و مفید» منتشر می‌کند. خیلی ساده بگم، یکی از وجوه مثبت این سری از کتاب‌ها این است که یک موضوع تقریبا جزئی را متخصص آن حوزه می‌نویسد و این باعث می‌شود هرجلد از این مجموعه را تقریبا یکی از بهترین پژوهش‌گرهای آن حوزه بنویسد. البته این کارخانۀ خوش‌ساخت که محصولی اصولی تولید می‌کند یک ایراد بزرگ دارد و آن ایراد همانا «کارخانه بودن» آن است. امیدوارم خیلی رادیکال برداشت نکنید این برداشتِ من رو.(بازم بگم که من کی باشم که اینجوری یک پروژۀ بسیار بزرگ را به زیر بگیرم:) )
ببینید در این جلد و دیگر جلدهای این مجموعه، با اینکه پرواضح است که بالاخره به ناگریز، نویسنده‌ها ایده‌های خودشون در مورد آن موضوع خاص را تاثیر داده اند، اما اگر با روندهای موجود در این‌گونه از انتشارات‌های حرفه‌ای آشنا باشید نیک می‌دانید که «بی‌طرفی علمی» مخصوصا در این‌گونه متون مقدماتی و معرفی‌گون، برایشان اهمیت بنیادین دارد. فلذا همچین مشخص نمی‌شود که نویسنده خود چه دغدغه‌ای دارد برای بررسی آن موضوع خاص.
اجازه بدید یه مثال ریز بزنم: گادامر در کتاب «آغاز فلسفه» به همین دوره تاریخی و فلاسفه پیشاسقراطی می‌پردازد و در محاورات افلاطون و جاهای دیگر سعی می‌کند به مسئله «آغاز» بپردازد. بعد در این مسیر سعی می‌کند ریشه‌های فلسفه غرب را پیدا کند. سعی می‌کند از گذشته سوال کند و خلاصه با تفسیر تاریخ، خود تاریخی خلق می‌کند. در این مسیر از هرمنوتیک مشهور خودش هم بهره می‌بره که این باز به صورت آگاهانه نشان می‌دهد متفکر دارد چیزی به تاریخ اضافه می‌کند. اما این کتاب تاجای ممکن تلاش کرده بود سعی کند به شرح آن دوره بپردازد بدون افزوده‌ای. این روش خوبی‌های خودش را دارد، اما خب آنگونه که باید نیست. خیلی توضیح‌اش سخته و ذهنم براش منسجم نیست.
4- این کتاب از چند جهت برایم جالب بود و علی‌رغم نقدهایی که بهش دارد، بهش نمرۀ خوبی دادم:
اول اینکه سعی می‌کرد از لابلای پاره‌نوشته‌های باقی مانده به یه کنجکاوی باستان‌شناسانه به ما نشان بدهد با چه چیزی در مواجه با پیشاسقراطی‌ها طرف ایم. خلاصه اینکه ازشون صرفا یکسری پاره‌نوشته و متن‌های تکه تکه مانده و اینجوری نیست که مجموعۀ کاملی از آثارشون مانده باشه. تازه اون دوران سنت کتابت آن چنان بسط نداشته. وای از بحث مدیوم و دعوای دیالوگ شفاهی(سقراط/دموکریتوس)، دیالوگ مکتوب (افلاطون) و نثر مکتوب(ارسطو) و اثری که داشته.
دوم اینکه مشخص است نویسنده در این حوزه متخصص است و نکته‌سنجی‌ها و دقت‌های خوبی دارد.
سوم. نویسنده تلاش کرده بود آن تصویر مشهور که در قرن 19 و 20 در مورد پیشاسقراطی‌ها بوده را به نقد بکشه. تصویر آن دوران به واسطه متون ارسطو در مورد پیشاسقراطی‌ها بوده و دوگانۀ وحدت‌گرا/کثرت‌گرا اهمیت داشته است. اما نویسده تلاش کرده بود این تصویر همگن را نابود کند و یک کلاژ اندکی غیرهمگن تحویلِ ما دهد که من عاشق بی‌نظمی ام.
چهارم. تاکید نویسنده در اهمیت پیشاسقراطی برای فلسفه‌پردازی عصر کلاسیک (مشخصا همون سه‌تا مشهورا :) ) برام خیلی جالب بود. در راستای اهمیت بینامتنیت.
ترجمه هم خوب بود. مشخص است مترجم دانشجوی فلسفهٔ خوبی بوده است، چون معادل‌یابی‌ها همان لغات مشهور به فارسی بودند.

[Asad Asgari · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Presocratic Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction" by Catherine Osborne left me unsatisfied for a few reasons. Firstly, the writing lacked enthusiasm and failed to make the complex subject matter engaging. The organization felt disjointed, making it difficult to follow the flow of ideas. The brevity, intended to be an advantage, sacrificed depth and left me craving a more thorough exploration. Lastly, the book missed the opportunity to connect Presocratic ideas to contemporary relevance, leaving it somewhat isolated from the broader context of philosophy. Overall, the book falls short of expectations, offering only a basic introduction to Presocratic philosophy without the depth and engagement I was hoping for.

[Banafsheh · Rating 3 out of 5]

این کتاب رو در امتداد خواندن فلسفه انتخاب کردم.

بعد از اینکه فلاسفه پیش از سقراط رو از دو منبع تاریخ فلسفه خوندم (سیر حکمت در اروپا و فلسفه غرب از آنتونی کنی) بیشتر جهت یه جمع‌بندی به این کتاب رجوع کردم.

خوبیش اینه که خلاصه است. بدیش اینه که سیر تاریخی نداره و نویسنده با معیاری جز تاریخ فلسفه شروع به روایت ماجرای فلاسفه کرده.

اینکه جملات وعبارات نقل شده از هر فیلسوف رو توی یه سری پنجره آورده بود خیلی خوب بود و با توجه به هدف من از خوندنش میتونم بگم راضی کننده بود

ولی اصلا به تنهایی قابل اکتفا نیست و نمیشه ازش اطلاعات کاملی به دست آورد.

صفحه‌آرایی کتاب هم در این ضمن بگم که افتضاااااااح بود !! از نشر ماهی همچین انتظاری نمیره
امیدوارم توی چاپهای بعدی رفع بشه

[Fatemeh · Rating 4 out of 5]

من چیزی از فلسفه نمیدونم و کتاب های خیلی کمی در موردش خوندم .اصلا به خاطر همین موضوع بود که از مجموعه مختصر مفید ها ، فلسفه پیش سقراطی رو انتخاب کردم با خودم گفتم حالا که اینقدر علم کمی دارم پس از اول و با سیر تاریخی درست شروع کنم .
کتاب تا حد زیادی راحت ‌خوانه حالا نمیدونم دلیلش اینه که کلا فلسفه اون دوران خیلی پیچیده نبوده یا این هنر نویسنده بوده که با زبان ساده توضیح داده در هر صورت کاملا انتظاراتی که از این نوع کتاب ها داشتم رو برآورده کرد.

شواهد و مدارک ما از این دوران کمه و تقریبا بیشتر آثار از بین رفتند و چیزی که برای ما باقی مونده در واقع توسط فیلسوفان و نویسندگان نسل بعدی در آثارشون ذکر شده ،حالا یا نقدی بهش کردند یا لا به لای حرفاشون یه نقل قولی هم از پیشکسوتای خودشون آوردند.اما سوالی که برای من ایجاد شده اینه که این فلسفه ایی که به این فیلسوفان نسبت میدیم ،واقعا فلسفه خودشون بوده یا نویسنده های نسل بعد صرفا برداشتشون از موضوع رو بیان کردند.در هر صورت مثل هر سند تاریخی دیگه ای هیچوقت قرار نیست مطمئن بشیم .

چیز جالب دیگه ایی که نمیدونم درست فکر میکنم یا نه این بود که فیلسوفان قبل سقراط ( به غیر از سوفسطیان)بیشتر از این که فیلسوف باشند،دانشمند و فیزیک‌دان و ریاضی‌دان بودند.و به سوال دیرینه تاریخ که چی هستیم و به کجا داریم میریم از لحاظ مادی جواب میدند.جالبه که حرفاشون، هم با عقل جور در میاد هم نمیاد ،مثلا اون بنده خدایی که گفته همه موجودات از آب به وجود می‌آیند،بیراه نمیگفته اما آیا واقعا اون زمان از فرگشت و تکامل اطلاع داشته یا همینجوری از رو هوا یه چیزی گفته یا اصلا شاید دلیلی برای مسئله داشته ،با اینکه دلیلش درست نیست ولی آیا دلیل نادرست باعث نادرست بودن مسئله هم میشه ؟

نمیدونم و اطلاعاتم اونقدر زیاد نیست که بخوام کتاب رو نقد کنم اما در کل برای من کتاب دوست‌داشتنی بود ،هرچند که پنجره هایی که وسط متن اصلی آورده بود و هی متن رو قطع می‌کرد دوست نداشتم .

[Javad · Rating 3 out of 5]

فلسفۀ پیش‌سقراطی کتاب خوش‌خوان و مفرحی است برای آشنایی با اندیشۀ فیلسوفانی که قبل از سقراط می‌زیسته‌اند و در واقع سلف فکری او و فلاسفۀ بعدش بوده‌اند. خواندن این کتاب برای کسانی که قصد دارند مطالعه‌ای اجمالی در تاریخ فلسفه انجام دهند بسیار مفید است. آگاهی از همین اندیشه‌های نادقیق و نه‌چندان مدونِ متفکران پیش‌سقراطیْ آبشخورهای فلسفه‌های توسعه‌یافته‌تر بعدی را نشان می‌دهد و به فهم بهتر آن اندیشه‌های پسینی کمک می‌کند.

ترجمۀ خانم صلاح‌کریمی نیز بر این کتاب روان و صمیمی است و این مسئله به‌همراه لحن شبه‌محاوره‌ای و قصه‌گویانۀ کتاب، باعث راحت‌خوان بودن آن شده است.

[Julian Worker · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think most people's knowledge of Presocratic Philosophers, mine included before I read this book, was limited to Pythagoras and the absurd paradoxes of Zeno including the well known example of Achilles and the tortoise.

This Very Short Introduction to Presocratic Philosophy increased my understanding of the world of Greek philosophy starting with Thales of Miletus from the 7th / 6th Century BC via Heraclitus and Democritus, to Protagoras and the other Sophists who lived just before the time of Socrates in the 5th Century BC.

Even though philosophers of this time wrote down very little and little of what was written down actually survived, the sparse snippets of their words show a keen interest in the nature of reality, time, and space. These philosophers were the ones who set Western philosophy on the course it's still on today.

Empedocles was a native of Akragas, a Greek city in Sicily, now called Agrigento between 492 and 432 BC. Empedocles' philosophy is best known for originating the cosmogonic theory of the four classical elements.

Heraclitus famously wrote "Into the same rivers we step in and we don't step in, we are and we are not". The idea we can't step into the same river twice might be linked to the idea that the river is always on the move and so the water into which you step is not the same water. Is the river a body of moving water? If so, you step in again in the same place but into something different from what was there before. Or is the river something that remains even though the water changes? Heraclitus prompts us to wonder.

Anaxagoras (500 - 428BC) and Democritus (460 - 370BC) both suggested that reality was hidden because it involved components too small for us to see. Democritus called these components atoms, meaning uncuttable and believed we could explain the behaviour of ordinary things by the movement of these atoms. The most original aspect of Anaxagoras’s system was his doctrine of nous (“mind” or “reason”). The cosmos was formed by mind in two stages: first, by a revolving and mixing process that still continues; and, second, by the development of living things.

Protagoras was famous for saying: "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are so, and of things which are not, that they are not." Man means human and not a male person specifically. He probably meant that we humans are the yardstick for deciding what counts and what doesn't count as real. The world is as we make it out to be.

[Jo Walton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliantly lucid, readable, and remarkably comprehensive for such a short book.

I bought this because I was enjoying Osborne/Rowett's papers on Academia.edu so much that I wanted to give her some money.

[Abdullah Başaran · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some verbalism and pieces from the original texts, nothing more.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

This entry in Oxford University Press’s series of “Very Short Introductions” aims give readers an overview in 168 pages of the Presocratics, the philosophers of the Greek-speaking world who lived before Socrates and were among the first to note down musings on the nature of reality and the physical makeup of the universe. In chapters dedicated slightly more to general themes than to individual thinkers, Catherine Osborne presents some of the major contributions that they made to philosophy: the theory that everything is made of tiny bits called atoms, the famous paradox of Zeno and the tortoise, and the puzzle of how any change or development is possible if reason leads us to conclude that the universe is unchanging.

Two things make this book stand out in popular introductions to the subject, revealing the Presocratics in a different light than I got in an undergraduate philosophy course years ago. The first is that Osborne underlines how their writings have not come down to us in full, but rather as fragmentary manuscripts and quoted snippets in other ancient sources, which requires scholars to do a great deal of interpretation and guesswork, and it also means that our understanding of their thought can change when new papyri are discovered. She uses Empedocles and an archaeological discovery in the 1990s as an example of this changing view. The second fresh concern of Osborne's work is to overturn the traditional presentations of the Presocratics as a straight line of development and progress, as it is unknown if they even actually read each other, and so we shouldn't think that each Presocratic figure was responding specifically to one before him.

Some Very Short Introduction titles are accessible to a practically universal audience. Though Osborne tries to avoid excessive jargon, her particular way of reiterating the Presocratics’ arguments assumes that the reader already has at least some background in philosophy. The author also clearly ran up against the space constraints of the Very Short Introduction series, and the approach she chooses ends up feeling curiously cut off at the knees within a mere 168 pages. Thus, while the fresh aspects of Osborne’s presentation mentioned above are worth getting, the reader may well find another, less straitjacketed introduction more fulfilling. For what it is worth, Osborne does provide a Further Reading section at the end of this book.

[So Hakim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Useful, but thematic organization let the book down.

It would have been better if the book divided chapters by thinkers or schools, focusing on their ideas. Unfortunately it didn't: instead the author tried to use a bird-eye-view perspective, connecting one thinker to others.

Better introductions to the Presocratics are available, and even public domain version is pretty good: John Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy (1908) comes to mind.

[Sonic · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a super excellent book! First to talk about this vast subject, is commendable, secondly to speak succinctly on this topic, is amazing, and thirdly the way Catherine Osborne engages us (the readers) is quite exceptional. Ms. Osborne is capable of asking good questions, and sometimes being satisfied with some good questions instead of reducing these concepts to erroneous and incomplete assumptions. She has an engaging and down-to-earth voice that is incredibly refreshing amongst the scholarly voices of this (A Very Short Introduction) series.
This is fabulous!

[Maya · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.75 Not as well focused as Ancient Philosophy: A Very Sort Introduction. I wish that instead of talking about philosophers the way she did she would have instead taken the theories and followed them from the beginning to the end instead. She seems to jump around on the theories instead of building them up. Still a good read though.

[Nick · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book did not inform, and, barring the last two chapters, was not much of an introduction to anything. I liked the chapter on the Sophists, which was only supposed to be supplementary to the key presocratics. Mediocre book.

[Joshua Reynolds · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not very organised. An historical approach would have been better than thematic.

[Not Well Read · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Once upon a time there lived a man called Thales. He was a bit of a scientist, and greatly impressed the people of his day by applying his new ideas in real life. This enabled him to achieve some notorious instances of military success and economic advantage. But what he became most famous for was the idea that the world stays where it is because it is floating on water, and – on the same theme – the idea that all the things in the world derive from water in some way. No sooner had Thales (who lived in a place called Miletus, right by the sea) put forward this wet hypothesis than others felt the need to take up the challenge: “not water”, said one, “but air”; “not air”, said another, “but earth”; “not any of those”, said a third, “but some other stuff that isn’t really anything in particular”. Everyone wanted to explain, as he thought best, how the world, as we know it now, could have originated from some single undifferentiated matter. This debate went on for some time, each contributor adding a plausible theory to explain how the world might have come to look as it now does, supposing his own idea of its origin were true.”
(p.29)

This is very simply written and accessible, so it works for a ‘very short introduction’. It can be quite dry but the varied format (pictures, text boxes, tables etc.) help make it a little more engaging – perhaps for entry-level information Wikipedia is useful for basic reviews too, but books like this are more trustworthy for all the obvious reasons. Some of the introductory material seemed a bit obvious (explanations about what a fragment is etc.), but as a classicist things that seem obvious to me may not be to other people, and I’m sure the author just wants to make sure everyone is on the same page. I found there was good checking of our priorities (i.e. debate) where these assumptions might be anachronistic, and yet there is some evidence for the recognition of reasoned argument in the early stages, though Osborne points out that the natural philosophers didn’t do much to defend their own views.

All in all, this is a pretty typical addition to the ‘very short introduction’ series: if you want to learn about a new subject, they will give you the basic insight, but in their strictly factual and objective format they are unlikely to instil much passion or enthusiasm in the process.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought that this introduction was well done. I think she did a good job working around the lack of source material but still presenting a compelling survey of the presocratics.

There are no original source materials from these philosophers. All we have are what are termed fragments, which are quotations of the originals by other writers, and testimonials, which are summaries by other writers of what the original author said/wrote.

The importance of the presocratics can be seen by the fact that later philosophers, even down to the modern day, have reacted and interacted with what they said.

Osborne first talks about the discovery of a new fragment of writings by Empedocles, which illustrates the difficulty of studying the presocratics. In a tomb in Egypt they found scraps of papyrus that had been reused to create an ornament. Originally, the papyrus contained a poem by Empedocles. Through painstaking puzzle solving they were able to assemble pieces to find a new line of the poem. But while it answers some questions about what Empedocles was saying, it raises other questions.

The rest of the book takes other philosophers in turn and discusses not only the important contributions they made to philosophy but also the open questions we have about what they might have been saying since we have so little of it.

I learned about Zeno and his deep thoughts into infinity, as well as his paradoxes that helped get the discipline of logic going. Xenophon and Melissus who raised the questions about knowing and appearance. Democritus whose discussions about appearance led to atomic theory in chemistry. Heraclitus and Pythagoras. And the sophists and the birth of professional rhetoric.

A very interesting book to survey what we know about these men and how they influenced later philosophers.

[Erik · Rating 3 out of 5]

Its been depressing me lately that I hadn’t finished a single book this year. Potentially sad that the one I finally did finish was only 135 pages, but its still something. In a moment where Im having to reassess life as a whole I found myself looking back at something I was trying to do before my life was swept away for over a year now. Philosophy has been a love of mine ever since I got over thinking that something my Dad use to say to my brother and I when were kids was dumb and didn’t make any sense. He use to say, “people don’t make you angry, you make yourself angry.” I remember thinking to myself how he could say something like that. As the years have gone on I have come to understand the wisdom behind many things my Dad would say, and decided at some point along the way to search for wisdom itself. How much of that is true in my “archai” is hard to say. It seems clear enough to point to. I appreciate these oxford classics having about 20 of them have only just finished one of them. I think that Oxford publishing has great merit to it, and find myself flipping through any of their books I see on subjects that interest me. I found this book to my liking in the authors attempt to not try to give the a linear history of philosophy, but to try something different. Its a chapter to chapter of ideas that the presocratics wrestled with, and that many of us have over the millennia. I found the book to have good insight and a refreshing take on a history (for me). For anyone else looking to take a look into what it even is to be presocratic I would suggest this book. I was an enjoyable step on my path.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very impressive work. As someone who was only vaguely aware of presocratic philosophers, I was met with a flurry of Greek names. I had tried to learn about presocratic philosophy many years ago in an era of 'I don't know anything about philosophy' panic, and so it was refreshing to meet some of these folks again. Yet the book is largely trying to oppose the vague way I had been instructed about them, which is the emphasis on their metaphysics (Zeno and Pythagoras perhaps being exceptions). This book isn't completely reactionary, but there is a definite effort to trawl through the scraps we have of these philosophers' thoughts to piece together what these people were thinking and discussing. It leads to quite a disorganised book, yet I think it proves its relevance to the present. The author makes the connection between some of them and later systemic thinkers, as well as Nietzsche's strong influences. It definitely felt like a strong introduction to these thinkers, though I disagree with it being very short.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

read for *uni*.
as i've said before, philosophy isn't really my thing - especially this kind of philosophy, which isn't exactly moralistic and more mathematical / origins-based - but this was a really useful little guide to the presocratics for my greek archaic poetry module. i especially liked the description of empedocles' daimones, and how they brought in the ideas of moral philosophy to the physical philosophy he was previously concerned with. also liked gorgias' defence of helen - a bit upset to hear that osborne thinks it might all be a parody of views gorgias doesn't quite agree with, though!
also, it is a strangely emotional experience to listen to achilles come down by gang of youths when reading this? i'm not entirely sure why - it just popped up on my playlist - but i had to take a moment.

[Jake · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a book of this length, Osborne does a fantastic job at giving the reader a glimpse of the development of philosophy before Socrates. Her exposition of the ideas of antiquity are engaging and far from dry; despite sacrificing the thoroughness and systematical edge of a chronological account, she achieves what a Very Short Introduction, for me at least, ought to: pique the reader's interest, and display the most crucial or notable ideas.

In addition, she does not shy away from the complexity of pre-Socratic philosophy, but inspects the dominant narrative of monism vs pluralism centred around the question of archai (origins), which is an admirable feat. Overall, a great way to launch the reader into further studies in ancient philosophy.

[Review 1 - 17/05/17.]

[Molsa Roja(s) · Rating 5 out of 5]

If one’s intention is to disentangle presocratic philosphy in a 144 pages book, one is wrong: this is an overview, yet an excellent one at that. Having already read an extense manual on this, I found myself in need to take a look at a more divulgative perspective, so that the perspective acquired during the study of the brief fragments would be completed or else, rejected. In Osborne’s tale, even if obviously arbitrary, one gets a glimpse of the motives that took them to devise cosmogonies over and over, as well as the importance of philosophers such as Heraclitus or Parmenides. The last chapter on sophists was simply fantastic. On the grounds of being an introduction, it’s the best there can be.

[Tracy Poff]

Osborne avoids the common presentation of the presocratics as essentially cosmologists responding to one another in a linear sequence, and particularly questions whether Parmenides was responding to Heraclitus or vice versa.

The book opens with a motivating discussion of a papyrus newly assembled in 1992 containing fragments of Empedocles which brings into question the division between his mystical and cosmological writings (by plausibly indicating they were contained in a single work).

The takeaway is that we should recognize the Presocratics as thinkers with a wide variety of interests, just as we would expect of later philosophers.

[Taylor Swift Scholar · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is perhaps the weakest very short introduction I have read so far. I learned exactly one thing: that the organization of early philosophers by First Principles is a construct that might not reflect that actual timeline of these thinkers. It also privileges some rather than others (Thales, Anaximander etc.) Now that you've read that, do yourself a favor and find a different book about Presocratic Philosophy. The thematic arrangement (rather than arranging by particular philosophers) was chaotic and difficult to follow.

[Gage Hoefer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Probably a 3.5.

I know the "Very Short Introduction" series can be wildly hit or miss, but I actually got a lot more out of this one than I expected. I had already been fairly familiar with the work of Heraclitus (i.e. what few fragments remain) due to his overwhelming influence on a lot of the philosophers I have read extensively, but I did not know much about the other pre-Socratics. This was a nice summation of the main ideas from that time period.

[Zack · Rating 1 out of 5]

1. Apparently a kind of revisionist take on Presocratics. Maybe an interesting talk for those already steeped in their lore but a weird place to frame a very short introduction.

2. Assumes a basic knowledge of philosophical ideas. Not at all recommended for the lay person

[Clive Hazell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good

A clear exposition, well organized while still accepting the complexity of the domain. I really liked the use of original fragments of texts. These enlivened the disquisition.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Terrific Introduction

A Terrific introduction into the ideas of the preSocratics and their influence on later philosophy and sciences. While the discussion the Monist and Pluralist philosophers investigating First Principles is interesting , Osborne's critique of the Sophists is the most practical for our our turbulent time From A socio-economic and political point of view.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

This seemed like a reasonable introduction to the Pre-Socratics and I learned a fair bit. I didn’t like the writing style. It includes a chapter that awkwardly starts with a false narrative and has another chapter which awkwardly refers to an imaginary translator hard at work while we’re reading.

[Mirko · Rating 1 out of 5]

'A Short Introduction' should not mean 'written quickly' or 'written without proper thought and effort'. This short introduction, unfortunately feels just like that - a quick side job. It was such a disappointing and an underwhelming read. Such a pitty.

[Hayden Degryse · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to get into Philosophy this is a pretty good start. The Presocratics worked almost exclusively in metaphysics but it is incredibly interesting to see how these ideas of the physical world influenced later ideas of ethics, epistemology, and other realms of philosophy. It is very short which is the whole point of the book but it is pretty much impossible to effectively capture the ideas of these philosophers with such little words. Still highly recommended to anyone who wants to learn about philosophy.