What do you think?
Rate this book
A Presocratics Reader
Building on the virtues that made the first edition of A Presocratics Reader the most widely used sourcebook for the study of the Presocratics and Sophists, the second edition offers even more value and a wider selection of fragments from these philosophical predecessors and contemporaries of Socrates.
With revised introductions, annotations, suggestions for further reading, and more, the second edition draws on the wealth of new scholarship published on these fascinating thinkers over the past decade or more, a remarkably rich period in Presocratic studies.
At the volume s core, as ever, are the fragments themselves but now in thoroughly revised and, in some cases, new translations by Richard D. McKirahan and Patricia Curd, among them those of the recently published Derveni Papyrus.
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
70 people are currently reading
489 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
April 28, 2024
You can’t step into the same book twice.
Read
February 14, 2021"Reviewing" this collection would be like reviewing the cosmic background radiation that gives us the earliest visible glimpses of the universe: "hmm, a little grainy, 3.5/5."
Of course it's not true that the thinkers gathered under the curiously teleological label of "presocratic" were the first people to think, or even the first people to write down interesting thoughts that responded to one another, but their own origins, as with their own doctrines and arguments, are something where we have to do more than the usual amount of squinting and conjecturing. And while one could certainly offer a starred review of the (say) philological correctness of Curd's editing and McKirahan's translations, that one would not be I.
Thankfully I've abandoned starred reviews as useless, and can only offer a few inexpert impressions: themes that stood out to me - one presence, one absence, one mystery. These are inexpert not only because I'm inexpert in myself but because, much as with my first read of Plato last year, I've tried to make a virgin and decontextualized reading: not because that's the most productive or accurate way to read the history of philosophy, but because you can only do it once.
The present theme: I said above that there wasn't a single beginning, just one we're imposing on this era for reasons of epistemological convenience. But there is a break, and that break is Parmenides. Not everyone here is responding to Parmenides' argument, but everyone after Parmenides is. It's not clear here when the idea that you could make logical proofs about the world through words, but once it gets going, and once Parmenides seems to prove that logically speaking change is impossible, every single philosophical system offered is an attempt to resolve this. Parmenides' Eleatic descendants go on churning out additional logical proofs to this effect. The natural philosophers who take up earlier Milesian theories about nature have to modify it to fit these proofs. If you read Plato's highly tendentious account it sometimes just sounds like the "sophists" are bringing question onto the whole relationship between words and reason and reality to be jerks who argue anything, but if you read the longer fragments of Protagoras here, it seems clear that they were disturbed by the consequences of Parmenides' tight relationship between them. Obviously, Plato himself is responding to Parmenides.
(Curiously, there doesn't seem to have arisen a Heraclitean "school," even though Heraclitus offers another horn to respond to this n-lemma: paraconsistent logic as a way to allow change.)
The absent theme: ethics and politics. It's not that you might not be able to do an intelligent dive beneath the surface here - it's merely that there's barely anything on the surface. These thinkers were overwhelmingly concerned with logic, epistemology, physics, and metaphysics, not ethics and politics. (This changes a bit only near the end, with the sophists again, and with the early Plato, overwhelmingly concerned ethical and political questions, and himself one more sophist.) Various heretical comments seem to indicate that this curious absence of political thinking wasn't simply to avoid touching a third rail, either. Nor do we see many indications of Plato's interest in literary criticism. Early Greek philosophy was basically a STEM affair, even when the form in which it was presented was quite stylized and literary rather than dry (Parmenides' big bang of an argument is presented in the form of an epic poem, where the truth is revealed to him by a goddess.)
The WTF theme: references to "limited" and "unlimited" as a basic kind of opposition are everywhere, and if I was only reading Animaxander I could say that unlimited means some kind of unlimited potentiality in matter or whatever, some New Materialism sort of thing (the Milesians remind me a lot of contemporary New Materialism!), it's clear there's some weird Pythagorean mystery cult thing going on with it. At least, the Pythagoreans have this gnomic doctrine that these correspond to odd and even numbers, don't explain it, but the traces of it are everywhere, including yes again in Plato, with his offhand references he drops in every other dialogue to "the difference between even and odd" as what "arithmetic" is all about. I thought he was using this as a curiously specific reference to baseline mathematical knowledge, but it's clear to me now that there's something weirder and more interesting going on.
Recommended for anybody weird enough to care about this kind of thing. Take your time. At some point I'll come back to it when I'm better-armed with context, and I'll read it slowly that time, too.
Of course it's not true that the thinkers gathered under the curiously teleological label of "presocratic" were the first people to think, or even the first people to write down interesting thoughts that responded to one another, but their own origins, as with their own doctrines and arguments, are something where we have to do more than the usual amount of squinting and conjecturing. And while one could certainly offer a starred review of the (say) philological correctness of Curd's editing and McKirahan's translations, that one would not be I.
Thankfully I've abandoned starred reviews as useless, and can only offer a few inexpert impressions: themes that stood out to me - one presence, one absence, one mystery. These are inexpert not only because I'm inexpert in myself but because, much as with my first read of Plato last year, I've tried to make a virgin and decontextualized reading: not because that's the most productive or accurate way to read the history of philosophy, but because you can only do it once.
The present theme: I said above that there wasn't a single beginning, just one we're imposing on this era for reasons of epistemological convenience. But there is a break, and that break is Parmenides. Not everyone here is responding to Parmenides' argument, but everyone after Parmenides is. It's not clear here when the idea that you could make logical proofs about the world through words, but once it gets going, and once Parmenides seems to prove that logically speaking change is impossible, every single philosophical system offered is an attempt to resolve this. Parmenides' Eleatic descendants go on churning out additional logical proofs to this effect. The natural philosophers who take up earlier Milesian theories about nature have to modify it to fit these proofs. If you read Plato's highly tendentious account it sometimes just sounds like the "sophists" are bringing question onto the whole relationship between words and reason and reality to be jerks who argue anything, but if you read the longer fragments of Protagoras here, it seems clear that they were disturbed by the consequences of Parmenides' tight relationship between them. Obviously, Plato himself is responding to Parmenides.
(Curiously, there doesn't seem to have arisen a Heraclitean "school," even though Heraclitus offers another horn to respond to this n-lemma: paraconsistent logic as a way to allow change.)
The absent theme: ethics and politics. It's not that you might not be able to do an intelligent dive beneath the surface here - it's merely that there's barely anything on the surface. These thinkers were overwhelmingly concerned with logic, epistemology, physics, and metaphysics, not ethics and politics. (This changes a bit only near the end, with the sophists again, and with the early Plato, overwhelmingly concerned ethical and political questions, and himself one more sophist.) Various heretical comments seem to indicate that this curious absence of political thinking wasn't simply to avoid touching a third rail, either. Nor do we see many indications of Plato's interest in literary criticism. Early Greek philosophy was basically a STEM affair, even when the form in which it was presented was quite stylized and literary rather than dry (Parmenides' big bang of an argument is presented in the form of an epic poem, where the truth is revealed to him by a goddess.)
The WTF theme: references to "limited" and "unlimited" as a basic kind of opposition are everywhere, and if I was only reading Animaxander I could say that unlimited means some kind of unlimited potentiality in matter or whatever, some New Materialism sort of thing (the Milesians remind me a lot of contemporary New Materialism!), it's clear there's some weird Pythagorean mystery cult thing going on with it. At least, the Pythagoreans have this gnomic doctrine that these correspond to odd and even numbers, don't explain it, but the traces of it are everywhere, including yes again in Plato, with his offhand references he drops in every other dialogue to "the difference between even and odd" as what "arithmetic" is all about. I thought he was using this as a curiously specific reference to baseline mathematical knowledge, but it's clear to me now that there's something weirder and more interesting going on.
Recommended for anybody weird enough to care about this kind of thing. Take your time. At some point I'll come back to it when I'm better-armed with context, and I'll read it slowly that time, too.
October 1, 2024
Second Reading:
Reading these ancient fragments a second time helped me appreciate these proto scientists and philosophers much more. Sure, Thales sounds a bit whack when he states that everything is water. But these folks weren't stupid, and it's a decent start at answering the big questions. Their positions continue to be represented by modern philosophers albeit in more sophisticated form.
First Reading:
I have no good way to apply a rating to this collection of fragments. If you're interested in ancient philosophizing about the nature of the world, then this is a book for you. If you're not interested in that sort of thing, then it's not.
In the meantime while you ponder that, here's a bit of wisdom from Pythagoras: "Do not have swallows in the house. Spit on your nail parings and hair trimmings.... Do not urinate facing the sun." Be blessed.
Reading these ancient fragments a second time helped me appreciate these proto scientists and philosophers much more. Sure, Thales sounds a bit whack when he states that everything is water. But these folks weren't stupid, and it's a decent start at answering the big questions. Their positions continue to be represented by modern philosophers albeit in more sophisticated form.
First Reading:
I have no good way to apply a rating to this collection of fragments. If you're interested in ancient philosophizing about the nature of the world, then this is a book for you. If you're not interested in that sort of thing, then it's not.
In the meantime while you ponder that, here's a bit of wisdom from Pythagoras: "Do not have swallows in the house. Spit on your nail parings and hair trimmings.... Do not urinate facing the sun." Be blessed.
September 25, 2022
it was all good except for the uber pretentious parmenides he really brought the collection down a notch with his what-is bullshit
February 8, 2022
Fun stuff, standouts for me were the Milesians, Heraclitus, Parmenides and Zeno, Empedocles, and Leucippus and Democritus (August Thalheimer’s short piece on dialectical materialism contextualized the Milesians and co super well for me so I’m glad I read that). It’s so interesting to see that these ppl’s cosmogonies already contain materialism, flux, and the unity of opposites (Thales and Heraclitus stand out for me particularly). Parmenides and Zeno’s take on what-is and what-is not and the absurdity of motion and change (I’m associating them in my head because of Plato but apparently it’s more ambiguous than that) were also super fun, and it’s cool seeing people coming after try and take them on.
Read
September 26, 2023So much reading aahhhhhhh
July 28, 2016
4.8 stars
Substance. Motion. “Being” and being. And, not being. Air—condensation and rarefaction. Cosmos as arrangement, as ratio, as number.
The “transmigration of the soul. The “limited” and “unlimited.” A one god, (God); and, Universal Law.
The “Big Bang,” astronomical-geological differentiation, the transferability of energy, and the notion of dimensions.
Atoms, Nietzsche’s “cosmic symphony,” String Theory, and constant motion.
The Nature-Nurture dynamic . . .
C.S. Peirce’s “interpretant” . . . and,
Law as “agreement,” (Hobbes; Rousseau) . . .
All of these represent but some of the ideas with which the Presocratic philosophers grappled approximately 2,500 years ago.
Since then, some of the notions within Natural Philosophy not only have been refined but have been “proven” within the now mature fields of the sciences.
A Presocratics Reader presents, as subtitled, “selected” fragments and testimonia.
Although the subject matter here for most of the philosophers is either natural or metaphysical phenomena, both ethics and epistemology come under discussion as well.
Unfortunately, as the text explains, “Not a single Presocratic book has survived intact.” And, this compact little text excels in providing source information with regard to what we do have. Further, A Presocratics Reader provides maps and a “Location-philosopher” timeline for reference.
The introductory essays are excellent and act as a touchstone with which to quickly compare and contrast the postulates of earlier and later philosophers within the volume.
Given treatises of some later famous philosophers as well as Western scientific advancement, some of the thoughts here, 2,500 years old, with the “beginning” of formal philosophy, still surprise and provoke.
“Wanting more” becomes the single critique.
And, Anaxagoras and the Atomist philosophers become favorite sections.
Simply, either this or another comparable volume is "a must” for anyone interested in the metaphysical “big questions.”
Substance. Motion. “Being” and being. And, not being. Air—condensation and rarefaction. Cosmos as arrangement, as ratio, as number.
The “transmigration of the soul. The “limited” and “unlimited.” A one god, (God); and, Universal Law.
The “Big Bang,” astronomical-geological differentiation, the transferability of energy, and the notion of dimensions.
Atoms, Nietzsche’s “cosmic symphony,” String Theory, and constant motion.
The Nature-Nurture dynamic . . .
C.S. Peirce’s “interpretant” . . . and,
Law as “agreement,” (Hobbes; Rousseau) . . .
All of these represent but some of the ideas with which the Presocratic philosophers grappled approximately 2,500 years ago.
Since then, some of the notions within Natural Philosophy not only have been refined but have been “proven” within the now mature fields of the sciences.
A Presocratics Reader presents, as subtitled, “selected” fragments and testimonia.
Although the subject matter here for most of the philosophers is either natural or metaphysical phenomena, both ethics and epistemology come under discussion as well.
Unfortunately, as the text explains, “Not a single Presocratic book has survived intact.” And, this compact little text excels in providing source information with regard to what we do have. Further, A Presocratics Reader provides maps and a “Location-philosopher” timeline for reference.
The introductory essays are excellent and act as a touchstone with which to quickly compare and contrast the postulates of earlier and later philosophers within the volume.
Given treatises of some later famous philosophers as well as Western scientific advancement, some of the thoughts here, 2,500 years old, with the “beginning” of formal philosophy, still surprise and provoke.
“Wanting more” becomes the single critique.
And, Anaxagoras and the Atomist philosophers become favorite sections.
Simply, either this or another comparable volume is "a must” for anyone interested in the metaphysical “big questions.”
March 9, 2021
read for *uni*
honestly, i chose cl2003 cause i thought i wouldn't have to do any more philosophy but -here we go again- --> hated most of it because i hate philosophy, and by about page 100 i was skimming over the sciencey stuff because i *do not understand it*
however, enjoyed gorgias' praise of helen (82b11) because we all love ancient men not being misogynistic for once.
*march re-read* re-read this as my presocratic lectures were just starting, and still don't like it much. this time, though, i missed out the last two chapters because they are written in prose and not poetry, and i'm studying the philosophical poetry, not the sophists. generally enjoyed it a bit more because i sort of understand it now?
honestly, i chose cl2003 cause i thought i wouldn't have to do any more philosophy but -here we go again- --> hated most of it because i hate philosophy, and by about page 100 i was skimming over the sciencey stuff because i *do not understand it*
however, enjoyed gorgias' praise of helen (82b11) because we all love ancient men not being misogynistic for once.
*march re-read* re-read this as my presocratic lectures were just starting, and still don't like it much. this time, though, i missed out the last two chapters because they are written in prose and not poetry, and i'm studying the philosophical poetry, not the sophists. generally enjoyed it a bit more because i sort of understand it now?
November 27, 2010
This book is very fascinating. I feel the people who are discussed are the first true philosophers. They talk about the origins/ or rather how there was no origin to the Universe. I especially appreciated the chapter on Paremenides. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in philosophy.
September 21, 2019
This book represents my first venture into Ancient Greek philosophy and the Classics in general. It is easily accessible to those with little to no knowledge of the field. The authors are phenomenal scholars, organizing the book in a way so as to paint a flowing chronology of the development of man's deep understanding of the natural world in the West. For the most part, each chapter deals with one presocratic thinker, giving a summary of the thinker first and then following that with testimonies and fragments -- primary textual sources -- as a basis for understanding the thinker. A superb work!
November 6, 2023
!!! A book full of sages 🙌
Read
August 30, 2025so i actually didn't read alllllll of this but i read enough of it multiple times that i deserve to add this.
December 1, 2024
This is a very interesting collection for anyone interested in the roots of Western philosophical thought. The anthology brings together excerpts from and commentary on the thought of many Greek philosophers who predated Socrates (and who are not really unified by anything else). As the introduction explains, one of the criteria used to determine a presocratic 'philosopher' is a faith in rationality and interpreting observations about the nature of the world, as opposed to the acceptance of revealed truth through religion or mythology. In pursuit of this rational examination of the world, these philosophers considered disciplines as wide-ranging as physics and metaphysics, medicine, rhetoric, poetry, theology, politics, ethics, and biology.
However, most of the excerpts in this anthology focus principally on metaphysical questions, especially: what is the nature of existence? There are competing schools of thought, influence, and response to this question. But in choosing that focus, the editors have given short shrift to issues like rhetoric, poetics, and aesthetics, which I would be more interested in.
The Milesian School: https://youtu.be/VvKeUEVC9ZU
Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: https://youtu.be/MQr0cMyecUA
Xenophanes: https://youtu.be/AUMU0ZUQQPo
Heraclitus: https://youtu.be/3cjyFltOY48
Parmenides: https://youtu.be/5K5B-osYVNc
Anaxagoris: https://youtu.be/r7zi0cK-hsQ
Empedocles: https://youtu.be/6ofqfctEKds
Zeno of Elea: https://youtu.be/2F-3FvPAlOA
The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus: https://youtu.be/3ndvKosvxPU
Melissus: https://youtu.be/Utj0zgbwz00
Diogenes of Apollonia: https://youtu.be/fcsFNT2rwGQ
Protagoras: https://youtu.be/6KeclKLTM1k
Gorgias: https://youtu.be/bmm53i1SbT8
Antiphon: https://youtu.be/konP_zFtO3M
Critias: https://youtu.be/MSEOlqL0c_c
However, most of the excerpts in this anthology focus principally on metaphysical questions, especially: what is the nature of existence? There are competing schools of thought, influence, and response to this question. But in choosing that focus, the editors have given short shrift to issues like rhetoric, poetics, and aesthetics, which I would be more interested in.
The Milesian School: https://youtu.be/VvKeUEVC9ZU
Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: https://youtu.be/MQr0cMyecUA
Xenophanes: https://youtu.be/AUMU0ZUQQPo
Heraclitus: https://youtu.be/3cjyFltOY48
Parmenides: https://youtu.be/5K5B-osYVNc
Anaxagoris: https://youtu.be/r7zi0cK-hsQ
Empedocles: https://youtu.be/6ofqfctEKds
Zeno of Elea: https://youtu.be/2F-3FvPAlOA
The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus: https://youtu.be/3ndvKosvxPU
Melissus: https://youtu.be/Utj0zgbwz00
Diogenes of Apollonia: https://youtu.be/fcsFNT2rwGQ
Protagoras: https://youtu.be/6KeclKLTM1k
Gorgias: https://youtu.be/bmm53i1SbT8
Antiphon: https://youtu.be/konP_zFtO3M
Critias: https://youtu.be/MSEOlqL0c_c
September 6, 2014
In the introduction, the editor states that in 585 BC Thales “reportedly predicted an eclipse of the sun” and that this marked the beginning of philosophy and science in Western thought. Some of the presocratics (Milesians and atomists) sought to explain the world by the material elements and forces they saw (e.g., water, air, water; atoms reacting to each other), in contrast to “appeals to the Muses or to divine warrant, and breaks in the connection between theory and evidence.” While some of the presocratics fall more in the former category, it could be argued that others such as Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus and Zeno fall into the latter category at least for some of their ideas and, interestingly, they laid the theoretical groundwork for some of the philosophy of Socrates and Plato.
The points of view of those presocratics covered in this book are gleaned from the introductory text. The philosophers themselves or what others said of them are so fragmented that it is difficult to decipher their meaning or significance. The maps in the first part of the book are excellent.
The points of view of those presocratics covered in this book are gleaned from the introductory text. The philosophers themselves or what others said of them are so fragmented that it is difficult to decipher their meaning or significance. The maps in the first part of the book are excellent.
Read
June 4, 2022idk I just kind of found this in Bouquiniste and thought it'd be a good time and it does well enough on its terms. Thank you everybody it's a decent enough crash course in those pesky hazy ancients. Lots of (unexpected) love for Empedocles that was shockingly poetic I loved that I think I'll come back to it in future. Otherwise we have a familiar cast if we read our Plato heavy hitters being Parmenides (very much) Heraclitus Zeno. Will possibly return for further dips
March 22, 2022
An interesting reader about the Presocratic philosophers - considered mystics to some, addicts to others, and mysteries to many!
I had been familiar with Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and a few other Presocratics, so discovering some of the original natural philosophers in Ancient Greece has been interesting. I am particularly fascinated by their interest in the original nature of the Universe, the origins of Matter, and compositions of the Universe generally. Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander formulated interesting ideas about where ALL Matter and thus life may have come from. Most modern science disproves them, but it is fascinating to see how inquiring these ancient minds were, as well as how they continued to search for true meaning and origin to things beyond the obvious because they were unconvinced about what knowledge of the universe had existed at the time.
Pythagoras was an odd character, propagating many mathematical methods, as well as the doctrine of the Transmigration of Soul and the Numerical Ordering of the Universe. Transmigration, or Reincarnation for short, has been a concept in world culture for years. Whether it's true, we don't know, but I like to believe such things as deja vu or eternal recurrence are warm and fuzzy ways of mulling over life's hardships, as well as its seeming random occurrences. The numerical ordering of the Universe is a fascinating theory I also find comfort in - it is reassuring to believe that an absolute exists in Nature that we can relate to since we have the learning and knowledge to understand Numbers. However, modern philosophy believes this view to be a tautology - numerical ordering may not even exist if human beings were not around to impose this view on things in the world by way of their subjectivity.
************
This is an excellent resource primarily for understanding some of the characters that Plato and Aristotle responded to in their own writings. Most readers interested will have scholarly eyes for the material, as not much will interest the common reader. I think that's much of its purpose - not much substantive philosophy comes to us from the Presocratics, and we very much have fragments, or other authors' references to them. That's what makes them mysterious - they almost became a folklore philosophy in function, which begs the question as to whether the views passed down to us are accurate. What's true philosophy as well, in that sense? Were the Presocratics appropriated by Plato/Aristotle for their comprehensive philosophies? Were the Presocratics as much victims of misappropriation as Egyptian philosophers were by the West? Where do the precise origins of thought in the Western World emanate from, and is credit due where it actually belongs? These questions have fascinated me for years.
I had been familiar with Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and a few other Presocratics, so discovering some of the original natural philosophers in Ancient Greece has been interesting. I am particularly fascinated by their interest in the original nature of the Universe, the origins of Matter, and compositions of the Universe generally. Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander formulated interesting ideas about where ALL Matter and thus life may have come from. Most modern science disproves them, but it is fascinating to see how inquiring these ancient minds were, as well as how they continued to search for true meaning and origin to things beyond the obvious because they were unconvinced about what knowledge of the universe had existed at the time.
Pythagoras was an odd character, propagating many mathematical methods, as well as the doctrine of the Transmigration of Soul and the Numerical Ordering of the Universe. Transmigration, or Reincarnation for short, has been a concept in world culture for years. Whether it's true, we don't know, but I like to believe such things as deja vu or eternal recurrence are warm and fuzzy ways of mulling over life's hardships, as well as its seeming random occurrences. The numerical ordering of the Universe is a fascinating theory I also find comfort in - it is reassuring to believe that an absolute exists in Nature that we can relate to since we have the learning and knowledge to understand Numbers. However, modern philosophy believes this view to be a tautology - numerical ordering may not even exist if human beings were not around to impose this view on things in the world by way of their subjectivity.
************
This is an excellent resource primarily for understanding some of the characters that Plato and Aristotle responded to in their own writings. Most readers interested will have scholarly eyes for the material, as not much will interest the common reader. I think that's much of its purpose - not much substantive philosophy comes to us from the Presocratics, and we very much have fragments, or other authors' references to them. That's what makes them mysterious - they almost became a folklore philosophy in function, which begs the question as to whether the views passed down to us are accurate. What's true philosophy as well, in that sense? Were the Presocratics appropriated by Plato/Aristotle for their comprehensive philosophies? Were the Presocratics as much victims of misappropriation as Egyptian philosophers were by the West? Where do the precise origins of thought in the Western World emanate from, and is credit due where it actually belongs? These questions have fascinated me for years.
October 3, 2025
"What are the Isles of the Blest? Sun and Moon. What is the oracle at Delphi? The tetractys, which is the harmony in which the Sirens sing."
Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras
This is a compact but excellent collection of Presocratic thought. The Presocratics contemplated the nature of the cosmos before mathematics and poetry and science and creativity were divided into rigid categories. The beautiful enigma of the cosmos was ineluctably linked to the chaos of elemental changes. In seeking to explain the ineffable, they sought an originating substance, archē.
The vision of the Presocratics is consummate, enrapturing. They drove the transcendent qualities of the natural universe into language. From Anaximander's apeiron to the eternal logos of the 'Riddler'—or even Xenophanes and his astrophysics of clouds—their collective speculations were written sub specie aeternitatis.
"You shall know...the destructive deeds of the shining sun's pure torch and whence they came to be, and you shall learn the wandering deeds of the round-faced moon and its nature, and you shall know also the surrounding heaven, from what it grew and how Necessity led and shackled it to hold the limits of the stars."
Clement, Miscellanies
February 25, 2024
A short read covering many thinkers. There is a short introductory remarks on the thinker followed by some fragments that are other thinkers representing what they said.
The presocratics spend most of their time trying to determine what is the nature of reality.
Thales - water
Anaximander - boundless
Anaximenes - air/ether
Pythagoras - number
Heraclitus - movement and flux/logos
Parmenides - critiqued the previous ones. He is complex. Basically something can't come from nothing. Things can't change into other things. Greatly changed how people thought and theorized about philosophy.
Anaxagoras - mixture of everything in everything else/nous
Empedocles - 4 natural elements and love and strife as coming together and separating.
Zeno of Elea - close to Parmenides and agreed in different words that there was many.
Democritus - monism - undivided particles in the void
Melissus -rigid unchanging one
Diogenes - rational air
Sophists - very relative and can prove any point even contradictory ones.
The presocratics spend most of their time trying to determine what is the nature of reality.
Thales - water
Anaximander - boundless
Anaximenes - air/ether
Pythagoras - number
Heraclitus - movement and flux/logos
Parmenides - critiqued the previous ones. He is complex. Basically something can't come from nothing. Things can't change into other things. Greatly changed how people thought and theorized about philosophy.
Anaxagoras - mixture of everything in everything else/nous
Empedocles - 4 natural elements and love and strife as coming together and separating.
Zeno of Elea - close to Parmenides and agreed in different words that there was many.
Democritus - monism - undivided particles in the void
Melissus -rigid unchanging one
Diogenes - rational air
Sophists - very relative and can prove any point even contradictory ones.
May 14, 2021
This collection of Presocratic philosophy covers Heraclitus, the Sophists, the Pythagoreans, the Atomists, and some other influential schools and philosophers and is structured in a chronological order that allows you to understand how certain ideas developed. There's also super helpful introductions at the start of each chapter that carefully explain the testimonies that are laid out in the next few pages.
The issue is that around 70% the book contains fragmented passages that are so confusing out of context that many of them just end up being completely useless. I would have enjoyed reading a version of this book that has explanations for each individual passage (or at least the significant ones), or a version that cuts down on the unnecessary passages and only includes ones that actually make sense.
The issue is that around 70% the book contains fragmented passages that are so confusing out of context that many of them just end up being completely useless. I would have enjoyed reading a version of this book that has explanations for each individual passage (or at least the significant ones), or a version that cuts down on the unnecessary passages and only includes ones that actually make sense.
September 10, 2023
The Presocratic philosophers are a group of thinkers whose works and thoughts preceded Socrates.
This book takes us from the very first philosophers, such as Thales, who thought that everything around us was made up of water, to the Atomists, who thought that everything was made up of indivisible atoms, to the Sophists, who sought the best way to live in the city (though they would charge you for it!), to finally, the Orphic way of life, which believed in an immortal soul which had to break free of a cycle of transmigration from body to body.
Curd offers succinct introductions to the various thinkers, and authors a helpful text which situates these thinkers in the geo-historical contexts as well as summarizes them for those in need of a Presocratic refresher!
This book takes us from the very first philosophers, such as Thales, who thought that everything around us was made up of water, to the Atomists, who thought that everything was made up of indivisible atoms, to the Sophists, who sought the best way to live in the city (though they would charge you for it!), to finally, the Orphic way of life, which believed in an immortal soul which had to break free of a cycle of transmigration from body to body.
Curd offers succinct introductions to the various thinkers, and authors a helpful text which situates these thinkers in the geo-historical contexts as well as summarizes them for those in need of a Presocratic refresher!
January 1, 2026
Six out of ten.
(Read for Dr. Woodcox's class on ancient Greek philosophy)
Curd and McKirahan do their best with the material they have here. I just couldn't get on the same page with the Presocratics on virtually anything. I explained the course to people as follows: "Maybe everything is made of water. Maybe everything is made of fire. Maybe we should worship numbers - and never pee facing the sun." There is important historical context here, and the editing and translating is carefully done. But I'd rather read Plato any day.
Solid recommend for anyone learning about the history of philosophy.
(Read for Dr. Woodcox's class on ancient Greek philosophy)
Curd and McKirahan do their best with the material they have here. I just couldn't get on the same page with the Presocratics on virtually anything. I explained the course to people as follows: "Maybe everything is made of water. Maybe everything is made of fire. Maybe we should worship numbers - and never pee facing the sun." There is important historical context here, and the editing and translating is carefully done. But I'd rather read Plato any day.
Solid recommend for anyone learning about the history of philosophy.
September 29, 2019
Didn't love it, but for what it was, it seemed well done, hence the four stars.
The most interesting things to me (and perhaps what will prove the most useful)
were certain turns of phrase that I found stimulating in a poetic way. Such was,
"since it was not an evil destiny that sent you/forth to travel/this route (for indeed
it is far from the beaten path of humans)".
And, "the meadow of Disaster", and "Mildly-shining flame chanced upon a little earth."
The most interesting things to me (and perhaps what will prove the most useful)
were certain turns of phrase that I found stimulating in a poetic way. Such was,
"since it was not an evil destiny that sent you/forth to travel/this route (for indeed
it is far from the beaten path of humans)".
And, "the meadow of Disaster", and "Mildly-shining flame chanced upon a little earth."
April 14, 2021
Excellent approach and summaries of the views of the presocratic philosophers, accompanied by large collections of their surviving fragments. I find that I hold a special warm spot in my heart for Heraclitus, who despite his misanthropic ways, never fails to illicit a smile when reading his declaration to the Ephesians that it would be better to hang themselves than exile the best among them. Comedy gold. The translation of this version is okay, had lots of cross references which was neat.
January 20, 2025
I don't rate this book on the content of what is within, that would be foolish. How could I rate what is possibly the birth of modern philosophical and scientific thought?
I give it a four simply based on my enjoyment. It is a pretty fascinating read, and worth it even if not after academic pursuit-- if just to simply gain a greater understanding of how mythos became logos.
I give it a four simply based on my enjoyment. It is a pretty fascinating read, and worth it even if not after academic pursuit-- if just to simply gain a greater understanding of how mythos became logos.
November 3, 2025
I found this to be an excellent introduction to the Presocratics. Some thinkers included in the book are definitely more interesting than others, but the collection does its job.
Highlights are the Milesians, Heraclitus (!!), Parmenides, Zeno and Anaxagoras. The inclusion of the Derveni Papyrus also went over well.
Highlights are the Milesians, Heraclitus (!!), Parmenides, Zeno and Anaxagoras. The inclusion of the Derveni Papyrus also went over well.
October 16, 2020
Heraclitus absolutely rules. also wild that Parmenides was so influential that philosophers had to argue with or against him for centuries after his death and we only have a few pages left of his work
December 31, 2023
interesting how everyone who came before Socrates was clumped together. It was easy to understand their philosophies, but hard to tell apart except for Heraclitus, and this is speaking with personal experience from a Quote Identification exam.
October 1, 2024
Nice little volume of the Presocratic Philosophers. Good translations and notes. I do wish there was more biographical and encyclopedic information in the introductions to each philosopher, however. It would have been a nice addition.
December 23, 2024
Quite the crash course for anyone getting into presocratic philosophy, although this book can serve some harsh criticism it still will be one to remember as it does serve as my official introduction to Socrates and the pre-socratics.
September 23, 2019
these guys were kinda dumb as hell. Also the fact that the description says 2-3 week introduction... I read this straight through in like 2 hours 😭
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews