THALES DE MILETO (624 – 546 A.C)
The ancient Greek philosopher Thales was born in Miletus in Greek Ionia. Aristotle, the major source for
Thales's philosophy and science, identified Thales as the first person to
investigate the basic principles, the question of the originating substances of
matter and, therefore, as the founder of the school of natural philosophy.
Thales was interested in almost everything, investigating almost all areas of
knowledge, philosophy, history, science, mathematics, engineering, geography,
and politics. He proposed theories to explain many of the events of nature, the
primary substance, the support of the earth, and the cause of change. Thales
was much involved in the problems of astronomy and provided a number of
explanations of cosmological events which traditionally involved supernatural
entities. His questioning approach to the understanding of heavenly phenomena
was the beginning of Greek astronomy. Thales' hypotheses were new and bold, and
in freeing phenomena from godly intervention, he paved the way towards
scientific endeavor. He founded the Milesian school of natural philosophy,
developed the scientific method, and initiated the first western enlightenment.
A number of anecdotes is closely connected to Thales' investigations of the
cosmos. When considered in association with his hypotheses they take on added
meaning and are most enlightening. Thales was highly esteemed in ancient times,
and a letter cited by Diogenes Laertius, and purporting to be from Anaximenes
to Pythagoras, advised that all our discourse should begin with a reference to
Thales (D.L. II.4).
Table of Contents
- The Writings of Thales
- Possible Sources for Aristotle
- Thales says Water is the Primary Principle
- Thales and Mythology
- Thales's Primary Principle
- New Ideas about the Earth
- All Things are Full of God
- Thales's Astronomy
- The Eclipse of Thales
- Setting the Solstices
- Thales's Discovery of the Seasons
- Thales's Determination of the Diameters of the Sun and the Moon
- Ursa Minor
- Falling into a Well
- Mathematics
- Crossing the Halys
- The Possible Travels of Thales
- The Milesian School
- The Seven Sages of Ancient Greece
- Corner in Oil
- The Heritage of Thales
- References and Further Reading
- Abbreviations
Doubts have always existed about whether Thales
wrote anything, but a number of ancient reports credit him with writings.
Simplicius (Diels, Dox. p. 475) specifically attributed to Thales authorship of
the so-called Nautical Star-guide. Diogenes Laertius raised doubts about
authenticity, but wrote that 'according to others [Thales] wrote nothing but two
treatises, one On the Solstice and one On the Equinox' (D.L.
I.23). Lobon of Argus asserted that the writings of Thales amounted to two
hundred lines (D.L. I.34), and Plutarch associated Thales with opinions and
accounts expressed in verse (Plutarch, De Pyth. or. 18. 402 E).
Hesychius, recorded that '[Thales] wrote on celestial matters in epic verse, on
the equinox, and much else' (DK, 11A2). Callimachus credited Thales with the
sage advice that navigators should navigate by Ursa Minor (D.L. I.23), advice which
may have been in writing.
Diogenes mentions a poet, Choerilus, who declared
that '[Thales] was the first to maintain the immortality of the soul' (D.L.
I.24), and in De Anima, Aristotle's words 'from what is recorded about
[Thales]', indicate that Aristotle was working from a written source. Diogenes
recorded that '[Thales] seems by some accounts to have been the first to study
astronomy, the first to predict eclipses of the sun and to fix the solstices;
so Eudemus in his History of Astronomy. It was this which gained for him the
admiration of Xenophanes and Herodotus and the notice of Heraclitus and
Democritus' (D.L. I.23). Eudemus who wrote a History of Astronomy, and also on
geometry and theology, must be considered as a possible source for the hypotheses
of Thales. The information provided by Diogenes is the sort of material which
he would have included in his History of Astronomy, and it is possible that the
titles On the Solstice, and On the Equinox were available to Eudemus.
Xenophanes, Herodotus, Heraclitus and Democritus were familiar with the work of
Thales, and may have had a work by Thales available to them.
Proclus recorded that Thales was followed by a
great wealth of geometers, most of whom remain as honoured names. They commence
with Mamercus, who was a pupil of Thales, and include Hippias of Elis,
Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Eudoxus of Cnidus, Philippus of Mende, Euclid, and
Eudemus, a friend of Aristotle, who wrote histories of arithmetic, of
astronomy, and of geometry, and many lesser known names. It is possible that
writings of Thales were available to some of these men.
Any records which Thales may have kept would have
been an advantage in his own work. This is especially true of mathematics, of
the dates and times determined when fixing the solstices, the positions of
stars, and in financial transactions. It is difficult to believe that Thales
would not have written down the information he had gathered in his travels,
particularly the geometry he investigated in Egypt and his measuring of the
height of the pyramid, his hypotheses about nature, and the cause of change.
Proclus acknowledged Thales as the discoverer of a
number of specific theorems (A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's
Elements 65. 8-9; 250. 16-17). This suggests that Eudemus, Proclus's source
had before him the written records of Thales's discoveries. How did Thales
'prove' his theorems if not in written words and sketches? The works On the
Solstice, On the Equinox, which were attributed to Thales (D.L. I.23), and
the 'Nautical Star-guide, to which Simplicius referred, may have been
sources for the History of Astronomy of Eudemus (D.L. I.23).
There is no direct evidence that any written
material of Thales was available to Plato and Aristotle, but there is a
surprisingly long list of early writers who could have known Thales, or had
access to his works, and these must be considered as possible sources for
Plato, Aristotle, and the philosophers and commentators who followed them.
Aristotle's wording, 'Thales says', is assertive wording which suggests a
reliable source, perhaps writings of Thales himself. Anaximander and Anaximenes
were associates of Thales, and would have been familiar with his ideas. Both
produced written work. Anaximander wrote in a poetical style (Theophr. ap.
Simpl. Phys. fr. 2), and the writing of Anaximenes was simple and unaffected
(D.L. II.3). Other philosophers who were credited with written works, who
worked on topics similar to those of Thales, and who may have provided material
for later writers, are Heraclitus of Ephesus, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae,
Alcmaeon, Hippo of Samos, and Hippias of Elis.
Aristotle defined wisdom as knowledge of certain
principles and causes (Metaph. 982 a2-3). He commenced his investigation
of the wisdom of the philosophers who preceded him, with Thales, the first
philosopher, and described Thales as the founder of natural philosophy (Metaph.
983 b21-22). He recorded: 'Thales says that it is water'. 'it' is the nature,
the archê, the originating principle. For Thales, this nature was a
single material substance, water. Despite the more advanced terminology which
Aristotle and Plato had created, Aristotle recorded the doctrines of Thales in
terms which were available to Thales in the sixth century B.C.E., Aristotle
made a definite statement, and presented it with confidence. It was only when
Aristotle attempted to provide the reasons for the opinions that Thales held,
and for the theories that he proposed, that he sometimes displayed caution.
Those who believe that Thales inherited his views
from Greek or Near-Eastern sources are wrong. Thales was esteemed in his times
as an original thinker, and one who broke with tradition and not as one who
conveyed existing mythologies. Aristotle unequivocally recorded Thales's
hypothesis on the nature of matter, and proffered a number of conjectures based
on observation in favour of Thales's declaration (Metaph. 983 b20-28).
His report provided the testimony that Thales supplanted myth in his
explanations of the behaviour of natural phenomena. Thales did not derive his
thesis from either Greek or non-Greek mythological traditions.
Thales would have been familiar with Homer's
acknowledgements of divine progenitors but he never attributed organization or
control of the cosmos to the gods. Aristotle recognized the similarity between
Thales's doctrine about water and the ancient legend which associates water
with Oceanus and Tethys, but he reported that Thales declared water to be the
nature of all things. Aristotle pointed to a similarity to traditional beliefs,
not a dependency upon them. Aristotle did not call Thales a theologian in the
sense in which he designated 'the old poets' (Metaph. 1091 b4) and
others, such as Pherecydes, as 'mixed theologians' who did not use 'mythical
language throughout' (Metaph. 1091 b9). To Aristotle, the theories of
Thales were so obviously different from all that had gone before that they
stood out from earlier explanations. Thales's views were not ancient and
primitive. They were new and exciting, and the genesis of scientific conjecture
about natural phenomena. It was the view for which Aristotle acknowledged
Thales as the founder of natural philosophy.
The problem of the nature of matter, and its
transformation into the myriad things of which the universe is made, engaged
the natural philosophers, commencing with Thales. For his hypothesis to be
credible, it was essential that he could explain how all things could come into
being from water, and return ultimately to the originating material. It is
inherent in Thales's hypotheses that water had the potentiality to change to
the myriad things of which the universe is made, the botanical, physiological,
meteorological and geological states. In Timaeus, 49B-C, Plato had
Timaeus relate a cyclic process. The passage commences with 'that which we now
call "water" ', and describes a theory which was possibly that of
Thales. Thales would have recognized evaporation, and have been familiar with
traditional views, such as the nutritive capacity of mist and ancient theories
about spontaneous generation, phenomena which he may have 'observed', just as
Aristotle believed he, himself had (Hist. An. 569 b1; Gen. An.
762 a9-763 a34), and about which Diodorus Siculus (I.7.3-5; 1.10.6), Epicurus
(ap. Censorinus, D.N. IV.9), Lucretius (De Rerum Natura , V.783-808) and
Ovid (Met. I.416-437) wrote.
When Aristotle reported Thales's pronouncement that
the primary principle is water, he made a precise statement: 'Thales says that
it [the nature of things] is water' (Metaph. 983 b20), but he became
tentative when he proposed reasons which might have justified Thales's
decision: '[Thales's] supposition may have arisen from observation . . . ' (Metaph.
983 b22). It was Aristotle's opinion that Thales may have observed, 'that the
nurture of all creatures is moist, and that warmth itself is generated from
moisture and lives by it; and that from which all things come to be is their
first principle' (Metaph. 983 b23-25). Then, in the lines 983 b26-27,
Aristotle's tone changed towards greater confidence. He declared: 'Besides
this, another reason for the supposition would be that the semina of all things
have a moist nature . . . ' (Metaph. 983 b26-27). In continuing the
criticism of Thales, Aristotle wrote: 'That from which all things come to be is
their first principle' (Metaph. 983 b25).
Simple metallurgy had been practised long before
Thales presented his hypotheses, so Thales knew that heat could return metals
to a liquid state. Water exhibits sensible changes more obviously than any of
the other so-called elements, and can readily be observed in the three states
of liquid, vapour and ice. The understanding that water could generate into
earth is basic to Thales's watery thesis. At Miletus it could readily be observed that
water had the capacity to thicken into earth. Miletus
stood on the Gulf of Lade through which the Maeander
river emptied its waters. Within living memory, older Milesians had witnessed
the island of Lade
increasing in size within the Gulf, and the river banks encroaching into the
river to such an extent that at Priene, across the gulf from Miletus the warehouses had to be rebuilt
closer to the water's edge. The ruins of the once prosperous city-port of Miletus are now ten kilometres distant from the coast and
the Island of Lade now forms part of a rich
agricultural plain. There would have been opportunity to observe other areas
where earth generated from water, for example, the deltas of the Halys, the
Ister, about which Hesiod wrote (Theogony, 341), now called the Danube,
the Tigris-Euphrates, and almost certainly the Nile. This coming-into-being of
land would have provided substantiation of Thales's doctrine. To Thales water
held the potentialities for the nourishment and generation of the entire
cosmos. Aëtius attributed to Thales the concept that 'even the very fire of the
sun and the stars, and indeed the cosmos itself is nourished by evaporation of
the waters' (Aëtius, Placita, I.3).
It is not known how Thales explained his watery
thesis, but Aristotle believed that the reasons he proposed were probably the
persuasive factors in Thales's considerations. Thales gave no role to the
Olympian gods. Belief in generation of earth from water was not proven to be
wrong until A.D. 1769 following experiments of Antoine Lavoisier, and
spontaneous generation was not disproved until the nineteenth century as a
result of the work of Louis Pasteur.
Thales proposed answers to a number of questions
about the earth: the question of its support; its shape; its size; and the
cause of earthquakes; the dates of the solstices; the size of the sun and moon.
In De Caelo Aristotle wrote: 'This [opinion that
the earth rests on water] is the most ancient explanation which has come down
to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus (Cael. 294 a28-30). He
explained his theory by adding the analogy that the earth is at rest because it
is of the nature of wood and similar substances which have the capacity to
float on water, although not on air (Cael. 294 a30-b1). In Metaphysics
(983 b21) Aristotle stated, quite unequivocally: 'Thales . . . declared that
the earth rests on water'. This concept does appear to be at odds with natural
expectations, and Aristotle expressed his difficulty with Thales's theory (Cael.
294 a33-294 b6).
Perhaps Thales anticipated problems with acceptance
because he explained that it floated because of a particular quality, a quality
of buoyancy similar to that of wood. At the busy city-port of Miletus, Thales had unlimited opportunities
to observe the arrival and departure of ships with their heavier-than-water
cargoes, and recognized an analogy to floating logs. Thales may have envisaged
some quality, common to ships and earth, a quality of 'floatiness', or
buoyancy. It seems that Thales's hypothesis was substantiated by sound
observation and reasoned considerations. Indeed, Seneca reported that Thales
had land supported by water and carried along like a boat (Sen. QNat.
III.14). Aristotle's lines in Metaphysics indicate his understanding
that Thales believed that, because water was the permanent entity, the earth
floats on water.
Thales may have reasoned that as a modification of
water, earth must be the lighter substance, and floating islands do exist.
Herodotus (The Histories, II.156) was impressed when he saw Chemmis, a
floating island, about thirty-eight kilometres north-east of Naucratis, the Egyptian trading concession
which Thales probably visited. Seneca described floating islands in Lydia: 'There are many light, pumice-like stones
of which islands are composed, namely those which float in Lydia' (Sen.
QNat., III.25. 7-10). Pliny described several floating islands, the most
relevant being the Reed Islands, in Lydia (HN, II.XCVII), and
Pliny (the Younger) (Ep. VIII.XX) described a circular floating island,
its buoyancy, and the way it moved. Thales could have visited the near-by Reed Islands.
He might have considered such readily visible examples to be models of his
theory, and he could well have claimed that the observation that certain
islands had the capacity to float substantiated his hypothesis that water has
the capacity to support earth.
Again it is understood that Thales did not mention
any of the gods who were traditionally associated with the simple bodies; we do
not hear of Oceanus or Gaia: we read of water and earth. The idea that Thales
would have resurrected the gods is quite contrary to the bold, new,
non-mythical theories which Thales proposed.
Modern commentators assume that Thales regarded the
earth as flat, thin, and circular, but there is no ancient testimony to support
that opinion. On the contrary, Aristotle may have attributed knowledge of the
sphericity of the earth to Thales, an opinion which was later reported by
Aëtius (Aët. III. 9-10) and followed by Ps.-Plutarch (Epit. III.10).
Aristotle wrote that some think it spherical, others flat and shaped like a drum
(Arist. Cael. 293 b33-294 a1), and then attributed belief in a flat
earth to Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Democritus (Arist. Cael. 294
b14-15). If following chronological order, Aristotle's words, 'some think it
spherical', referred to the theory of Thales. Aristotle then followed with the
theory of Thales's immediate Milesian successor, Anaximander, and then reported
the flat earth view of Anaximenes, the third of the Milesian natural
philosophers.
There are several good reasons to accept that
Thales envisaged the earth as spherical. Aristotle used these arguments to
support his own view (Arist. Cael. 297 b25-298 a8). First is the fact
that during a solar eclipse, the shadow caused by the interposition of the
earth between the sun and the moon is always convex; therefore the earth must
be spherical. In other words, if the earth were a flat disk, the shadow cast
during an eclipse would be elliptical. Second, Thales, who is acknowledged as
an observer of the heavens, would have observed that stars which are visible in
a certain locality may not be visible further to the north or south, a
phenomena which could be explained within the understanding of a spherical
earth. Third, from mere observation the earth has the appearance of being
curved. From observation, it appears that the earth is covered by a dome. When
observed from an elevated site, the sky seems to surround the earth, like a
dome, to meet the apparently curved horizon. If observed over the seasons, the
dome would appear to revolve, with many of the heavenly bodies changing their
position in varying degrees, but returning annually to a similar place in the
heavens. Through his work in astronomy Thales would almost certainly have
become familiar with the night sky and the motion of the heavenly bodies. There
is evidence that he gave advice to navigate by Ursa Minor, and was so involved
in observation of the stars that he fell into a well. As a result of
observations made over a long period of time, Thales could have realized that
the motions of the fixed stars could not be explained within the idea of the
observable hemispherical dome. During the determination of the size of the
rising sun, and again while watching its risings and settings during his work
on fixing the solstices, Thales may have realized that much natural phenomena
could be explained only within the understanding of the earth as a sphere.
From the shore, a ship can be seen to be
descending, gradually, below the horizon, with the hull disappearing from view
first, to be followed by masts and sails. If one had a companion observing from
a higher point, the companion would see the ship for a long period before it
disappeared from view.
Aëtius recorded the different opinions of the shape
of the earth that were held by Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes (III.9-10;
III.10; and III.10). Cicero
attributed to Thales the earliest construction of a solid celestial globe (Rep.
I.XIII.22). Thales's immediate successors proposed theories about the shape of
the earth which were quite different from each other, but that is no reason to
reject the view that Thales hypothesized a spherical earth. It is not the only
occasion on which Anaximander and Anaximenes failed to follow the theories of
Thales. That they did not do so is the main argument in favour of accepting
that the scientific method commenced in the Milesian School.
There is testimony that Thales knew the earth to be spherical, but no evidence
to suggest that he proposed any other shape.
Thales's theory about the cause of earthquakes is
consistent with his hypothesis that earth floats upon water. It seems that he
applied his floating on water simile to the natural phenomena of earthquakes.
Aëtius recorded that Thales and Democritus found in water the cause of
earthquakes (Aët. III.15), and Seneca attributed to Thales a theory that on the
occasions when the earth is said to quake it is fluctuating because of the
roughness of oceans (QNat. III.14; 6.6). Although the theory is wrong,
Thales's hypothesis is rational because it provides an explanation which does
not invoke hidden entities. It is an advance upon the traditional Homeric view
that they resulted from an angry supernatural god, Poseidon, shaking the earth
through his rapid striding.
The question of whether Thales endowed the gods
with a role in his theories is fundamental to his hypotheses. The relevant text
from Aristotle reads: 'Thales, too, to judge from what is recorded of his
views, seems to suppose that the soul is in a sense the cause of movement,
since he says that a stone [magnet, or lodestone] has a soul because it causes
movement to iron' (De An. 405 a20-22); 'Some think that the soul
pervades the whole universe, whence perhaps came Thales's view that everything
is full of gods' (De An. 411 a7-8). In reference to the clause in the
first passage 'to judge from what is recorded of his views', Snell convincingly
argued that Aristotle had before him the actual sentence recording Thales's
views about the lodestone (Snell, 1944, 170). In the second passage the 'some'
to whom Aristotle refers are Leucippus, Democritus, Diogenes of Apollonia,
Heraclitus, and Alcmaeon, philosophers who were later than Thales. They adopted
and adapted the earlier view of Thales that soul was the cause of motion, permeating
and enlivening the entire cosmos. The order in which Aristotle discussed
Thales's hypothesis obscures the issue.
The source for Aristotle's report that Thales held
all things to be full of gods is unknown, but some presume that it was Plato.
Thales is not mentioned in the relevant lines in Plato, but there is a popular
misconception that they refer to the belief of Thales. This is wrong. Thales
had rejected the old gods. In a passage in Apology(26 C) Socrates identified the
heavenly bodies as gods, and pointed out that that was the general
understanding. In Cratylus(399 D-E) Plato had Socrates explain a
relationship between soul as a life-giving force, the capacity to breathe, and
the reviving force. In Timaeus 34B) Plato had Timaeus relate a theory
which described soul as pervading the whole universe. Then, in Laws
Plato has the Athenian Stranger say: 'Everyone . . . who has not reached the
utmost verge of folly is bound to regard the soul as a god. Concerning all the
stars and the moon, and concerning the years and months and all seasons, what
other account shall we give than this very same, - namely, that, inasmuch as it
has been shown that they are all caused by one or more souls . . . we shall
declare these souls to be gods . . .? Is there any man that agrees with this
view who will stand hearing it denied that 'all things are full of gods'? The
response is: 'No man is so wrong-headed as that' (Laws, 899 A-B). Plato
had the Athenian Stranger extend his ideas into a theological theory. He used a
sleight of hand method to express his own ideas about divine spiritual beings.
With the exception of gods in the scheme of things, these passages reflect the
beliefs which formed the Thalean hypothesis, but Plato did not have the
Athenian Stranger attribute the crucial clause 'all things are full of gods' to
Thales. Thales is not mentioned.
Aristotle's text not the earliest extant testimony.
Diogenes preserved a report from Hippias: 'Aristotle and Hippias affirm that,
arguing from the magnet and from amber, [Thales] attributed a soul or life even
to inanimate objects' (D.L. I.24). This early report does not mention godly
entities. The later commentators, Cicero (Nat. D. I.X.25), and Stobaeus
(Ecl. I.1.11) included gods in Thales's theory. However, their views
post-date Stoicism and are distorted by theistic doctrines.
Plato converted the idea of soul into a theory that
'all things are full of gods', and this may have been Aristotle's source, but
the idea of gods is contrary to Thales's materialism. When Thales defined
reality, he chose an element, not a god. The motive force was not a
supernatural being. It was a force within the universe itself. Thales never
invoked a power that was not present in nature itself, because he believed that
he had recognized a force which underpinned the events of nature.
Thales is acclaimed for having predicted an eclipse
of the sun which occurred on 28 May 585 B.C.E. The earliest extant account of
the eclipse is from Herodotus: 'On one occasion [the Medes and the Lydians] had
an unexpected battle in the dark, an event which occurred after five years of
indecisive warfare: the two armies had already engaged and the fight was in
progress, when day was suddenly turned into night. This change from daylight to
darkness had been foretold to the Ionians by Thales of Miletus, who fixed the
date for it within the limits of the year in which it did, in fact, take place'
(Hdt. I.74). The vital points are: Thales foretold a solar eclipse; it did occur
within the period he specified. How Thales foretold the eclipse is not known
but there is strong opinion that he was able to perform this remarkable feat
through knowledge of a cycle known as the Saros, with some attributing his
success to use of the Exeligmos cycle. It is not known how Thales was able to
predict the Eclipse, if indeed he did, but he could not have predicted the
Eclipse by using the Saros or the Exeligmos cycles.
In addition to Herodotus, the successful prediction
of the eclipse was accepted by Eudemus in his History of Astronomy and
acknowledged by a number of other writers of ancient times (Cicero, Pliny,
Dercyllides, Clement, Eusebius). This is how Diogenes Laertius recorded the
event: '[Thales] seems by some accounts to have been the first to study
astronomy, the first to predict eclipses of the sun, and to fix the solstices;
so Eudemus in his History of Astronomy. It was this which gained for him
the admiration of Xenophanes and Herodotus and the notice of Heraclitus and
Democritus' (D.L. I.23). Diogenes asserted that Herodotus knew of Thales's
work, and in naming Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Democritus, he nominated three
of the great pre-Socratics, eminent philosophers who were familiar with the
work of Thales.
Modern astronomy confirms that the eclipse did
occur, and was total. According to Herodotus's report, the umbra of the eclipse
of Thales must have passed over the battle field. The
"un-naturalness" of a solar eclipse is eerie and chilling. All
becomes hushed and there is a strong uncanny sensation of impending disaster,
of being within the control of some awful power. In ancient times, the awesome
phenomenon must have aroused great fear, anxiety and wonder. The combatants saw
the eclipse as disapproval of their warfare, and as a warning. They ceased
fighting and a peace agreement was reached between the two kings.
It is not known why Thales turned away from the
traditional beliefs which attributed all natural events and man's fortunes and
misfortunes to the great family of Olympian gods, but Miletus was the most prosperous of the Ionian
cities, and it cannot be doubted that the flourishing merchants believed that
their prosperity resulted from their own initiative and endeavours. Thales's
great philosophical pronouncement that water is the basic principle shows that
Thales gave no acknowledgement to the gods as instigators and controllers of
phenomena. Thales's hypotheses indicate that he envisaged phenomena as natural
events with natural causes and possible of explanation. From his new
perspective of observation and reasoning, Thales studied the heavens and sought
explanations of heavenly phenomena.
It is widely accepted that Thales acquired
information from Near-Eastern sources and gained access to the extensive
records which dated from the time of Nabonassar (747 B.C.E.) and which were
later used by Ptolemy (Alm. III.7. H 254). Some commentators have
suggested that Thales predicted the solar eclipse of 585 B.C.E. through
knowledge of the Saros period, a cycle of 223 lunar months (18 years, 10-11
days plus 0.321124 of a day) after which eclipses both of the sun and moon
repeat themselves with very little change, or through knowledge of the
Exeligmos cycle which is exactly three times the length of the Saros (Ptolemy, Alm.
IV.2. H270). The ancients could not have predicted solar eclipses on the basis
of those periodic cycles because eclipses of the sun do not repeat themselves
with very little change. The extra 0.321124 of a day means that each recurring
solar eclipse will be visible to the west, just under one-third of the
circumference of the earth, being a period of time of almost 7.7 hours. This
regression to the west could not have been known to the ancient astrologers, a
fact which seems not to have been taken into account by the philosophers who
attribute Thales's success to application of one of those two cycles.
The following important fact should be noted. Some
commentators and philosophers believe that Thales may have witnessed the solar
eclipse of 18th May 603 B.C.E. or have had heard of it. They accepted that he
had predicted the solar eclipse of 28 May 585 B.C.E. and reasoned from the
astronomical fact of the Saros cycles and the fact that the two solar eclipses
had been separated by the period of 18 years, 10 days, and 7.7 hours, and
concluded that Thales had been able to predict a solar eclipse based upon the
knowledge of that cycle. Two facts discount rebut those claims. First, recent
research shows that the solar eclipse of 18th May 603 B.C.E. would not have
been visible in Egypt,
nor in the Babylonian observation cities where the astronomers watched the
heavens for expected and unusual heavenly events. The eclipse of 603 passed
over the Persian Gulf, too far to the south
for observation (Stephenson, personal communication, March 1999; and
Stephenson, "Long-term Fluctuations", 165-202). Even if the eclipse
of 603 had been visible to the Near-Eastern astronomers, it is not possible to
recognize a pattern from witnessing one event, or indeed, from witnessing two
events. One may suggest a pattern after witnessing three events that are
separated by equal periods of time, but the eclipse which preceded that of 603,
and which occurred on 6th May 621, was not visible in Near-Eastern regions.
Consequently, it could not have been recorded by the astrologer/priests who
watched for unusual heavenly phenomena, and could not have been seen as forming
a pattern.
It is quite wrong to say that eclipses repeat
themselves with very little change, because each solar eclipse in a particular
Saros occurs about 7.7 hours later than in the previous eclipse in the same
Saros, and that is about 1/3 of the circumference of the
earth's circumference. Adding to the difficulty of recognizing a particular
cycle is the fact that about forty-two periodic cycles are in progress
continuously, and overlapping at any time. Every series in a periodic cycle
lasts about 1,300 years and comprises 73 eclipses. Eclipses which occur in one
periodic cycle are unrelated to eclipses in other periodic cycles.
The ancient letters prove that the Babylonians and
Assyrians knew that lunar eclipses can occur only at full moon, and solar
eclipses only at new moon, and also that eclipses occur at intervals of five or
six months. However, while lunar eclipses are visible over about half the
globe, solar eclipses are visible from only small areas of the earth's surface.
Recent opinion is that, as early as 650 B.C.E. the Assyrian astronomers seem to
have recognized the six months-five months period by which they could isolate
eclipse possibilities (Steele, "Eclipse Prediction", 429).
In other recent research Britton has analysed a
text known as Text S, which provides considerable detail and fine analysis of
lunar phenomena dating from Nabonassar in 747 B.C.E. The text points to knowledge
of the six-month five month periods. Britton believes that the Saros cycle was
known before 525 B.C.E. (Britton, "Scientific Astronomy", 62) but,
although the text identifies a particular Saros cycle, and graphically depicts
the number of eclipse possibilities, the ancient commentary of Text S does not
attest to an actual observation (Britton, "An Early Function", 32).
There is no evidence that the Saros could have been
used for the prediction of solar eclipses in the sixth century B.C.E., but it
remains possible that forthcoming research, and the transliteration of more of
the vast stock of ancient tablets will prove that the Babylonians and Assyrians
had a greater knowledge of eclipse phenomena than is now known.
The Babylonian and Assyrian astronomers knew of the
Saros period in relation to lunar eclipses, and had some success in predicting
lunar eclipses but, in the sixth century B.C.E. when Thales lived and worked,
neither the Saros nor the Exeligmos cycles could be used to predict solar
eclipses.
It is testified that Thales knew that the sun is
eclipsed when the moon passes in front of it, the day of eclipse - called the
thirtieth by some, new moon by others (The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 3710).
Aëtius (II.28) recorded: [Thales] says that eclipses of the sun take place when
the moon passes across it in a direct line, since the moon is earthy in
character; and it seems to the eye to be laid on the disc of the sun'.
There is a possibility that, through analysis of
ancient eclipse records, Thales identified another cycle, the lunar
eclipse-solar eclipse cycle of 23 1/2 months, the fact
that a solar eclipse is a possibility 23 1/2 months after
a lunar eclipse. However, lunar eclipses are not always followed by solar
eclipses. Although the possibility is about 57% it is important to note that
the total solar eclipse of 28th May, 585, occurred 23 1/2months
after the total lunar eclipse of 4th July, 587. The wording of the report of
the eclipse by Herodotus: 'Thales . . . fixed the date for the eclipse within
the limits of the year' is precise, and suggests that Thales's prediction was
based upon a definite eclipse theory.
A report from Theon of Smyrna ap. Dercyllides
states that: 'Eudemus relates in the Astronomy that Thales was the first to
discover the eclipse of the sun and that its period with respect to the
solstices is not always constant' (DK, 11 A 17). Diogenes Laertius (I.24) recorded
that [Thales] was the first to determine the sun's course from solstice to
solstice, and also acknowledged the Astronomy of Eudemus as his source.
Solstices are natural phenomena which occur on June
21 or 22, and December 21 or 22, but the determination of the precise date on
which they occur is difficult. This is because the sun seems to 'stand still' for
several days because there is no discernible difference in its position in the
sky. It is the reason why the precise determination of the solstices was so
difficult. It was a problem which engaged the early astronomers, and more than
seven centuries later, Ptolemy acknowledged the difficulty (Alm. III.1.
H203).
It is not known how Thales proceeded with his
determination, but the testimony of Flavius Philostratus is that: '[Thales]
observed the heavenly bodies . . . from [Mount] Mycale
which was close by his home' (Philostratus, Life of Apollonius , II.V).
This suggests that Thales observed the rising and setting of the sun for many
days at mid-summer and mid-winter (and, necessarily, over many years). Mount Mycale,
being the highest point in the locality of Miletus, would provide the perfect vantage
point from which to make observations. Another method which Thales could have
employed was to measure the length of the noon-day sun around mid-summer and
mid-winter. Again this would require observations to be made, and records kept
over many days near the solstice period, and over many years.
From Diogenes Laertius we have the report:
'[Thales] is said to have discovered the seasons of the year and divided it
into 365 days' (D.L. I.27). Because Thales had determined the solstices, he
would have known of the number of days between say, summer solstices, and
therefore have known the length of a solar year. It is consistent with his
determination of the solstices that he should be credited with discovering that
365 days comprise a year. It is also a fact that had long been known to the
Egyptians who set their year by the more reliable indicator of the annual
rising of the star Sirius in July. Thales may have first gained the knowledge
of the length of the year from the Egyptians, and perhaps have attempted to
clarify the matter by using a different procedure. Thales certainly did not
'discover' the seasons, but he may have identified the relationship between the
solstices, the changing position during the year of the sun in the sky, and
associated this with seasonal climatic changes.
Apuleius wrote that 'Thales in his declining years
devised a marvellous calculation about the sun, showing how often the sun
measures by its own size the circle which it describes'. (Apul. Florida,
18). Following soon after Apuleius, Cleomedes explained that the calculation
could be made by running a water-clock, from which the result was obtained: the
diameter of the sun is found to be one seven-hundred-and-fiftieth of its own
orbit (Cleomedes, De Motu circulari corporum caelestium, II.75). The
third report is from Diogenes: 'According to some [Thales was] the first to
declare the size of the sun to be one seven hundred and twentieth part of the
solar circle, and the size of the moon to be the same fraction of the lunar
circle' (D.L. I.24). Little credence can be given to the water-clock method for
reaching this determination, because there is an inbuilt likelihood of repeated
errors over the 24 hour period. Even Ptolemy, who flourished in the second
century A.D., rejected all measurements which were made by means of
water-clocks, because of the impossibility of attaining accuracy by such means
(Alm. V.14. H416).
In his work in geometry, Thales was engaged in
circles and angles, and their characteristics, and he could have arrived at his
solution to the problem by applying the geometrical knowledge he had acquired.
There is no evidence to support a suggestion that Thales was familiar with
measurements by degrees but he could have learnt, from the Babylonians, that a
circle is divided into 3600. The figure of 720, which was given by Diogenes for
Thales, is double 360, and this is related to the Babylonian sexagesimal
system. To establish the dates of the solstices, Thales probably made repeated
observations of the risings and settings of the sun. From such experiments he
could have observed that the angle which was subtended by the elevation of the
rising sun is 1/20 and with 3600
in a circle, the ratio of 1:720 is determined.
Of the report from Diogenes Laertius (D.L. I.24)
that Thales also determined the orbit of the moon in relation to the size of
its diameter, Thales would repeat the method to calculate the orbit of the
moon.
Callimachus (D.L. I.22) reported that Thales
'discovered' Ursa Minor. This means only that he recognized the advantages of
navigating by Ursa Minor, rather than by Ursa Major, as was the preferred
method of the Greeks. Ursa Minor, a constellation of six stars, has a smaller
orbit than does the Great Bear, which means that, as it circles the North Pole,
Ursa Minor changes its position in the sky to a lesser degree than does the
Great Bear. Thales offered this sage advice to the mariners of Miletus,
to whom it should have been of special value because Miletus had developed a maritime trade of
economic importance.
In Theaetetus (174 A) Plato had Socrates
relate a story that Thales was so intent upon watching the stars that he failed
to watch where he was walking, and fell into a well. The story is also related
by Hippolytus (Diels, Dox. 555), and by Diogenes Laertius (D.L. II.4-5).
Irony and jest abound in Plato's writing and he loved to make fun of the
pre-Socratics, but he is not likely to have invented the episode, especially as
he had Socrates relate the event. Aristotle wrote that viewing the heavens
through a tube 'enables one to see further' (Gen. An. 780 b19-21), and
Pliny (HN, II.XI) wrote that: 'The sun's radiance makes the fixed stars
invisible in daytime, although they are shining as much as in the night, which
becomes manifest at a solar eclipse and also when the star is reflected in a
very deep well'. Thales was renowned and admired for his astronomical studies,
and he was credited with the 'discovery' of Ursa Minor (D.L. I.23). If Thales
had heard that stars could be viewed to greater advantage from wells, either
during day or night, he would surely have made an opportunity to test the
theory, and to take advantage of a method that could assist him in his
observations. The possibility that the story was based on fact should not be
overlooked. Plato had information which associated Thales with stars, a well,
and an accident. Whether Thales fell into a well, or tripped when he was
getting in or out of a well, the story grew up around a mishap.
The practical skill of land measurement was
invented in Egypt
because of the necessity frequently to remeasure plots of land after
destructive inundations. The phenomena is well described by Herodotus
(II.93-109). Egypt
was believed to be the source of much wisdom and reports tell us that many
Greeks, including Thales, Pythagoras, Solon, Herodotus, Plato, Democritus, and
Euclid, visited that ancient land to see the wonders for themselves.
The Egyptians had little to offer in the way of
abstract thought. The surveyors were able to measure and to calculate and they
had outstanding practical skills. In Egypt Thales would have observed the land
surveyors, those who used a knotted cord to make their measurements, and were
known as rope-stretchers. Egyptian mathematics had already reached its heights
when The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus was written in about 1800 B.C.E.
More than a thousand years later, Thales would have watched the surveyors as
they went about their work in the same manner, measuring the land with the aid
of a knotted rope which they stretched to measure lengths and to form angles.
The development of geometry is preserved in a work
of Proclus, A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements
(64.12-65.13). Proclus provided a remarkable amount of intriguing information,
the vital points of which are the following: Geometry originated in Egypt where it developed out of necessity; it
was adopted by Thales who had visited Egypt,
and was introduced into Greece
by him
The Commentary of Proclus indicates that he had
access to the work of Euclid
and also to The History of Geometry which was written by Eudemus of
Rhodes, a pupil of Aristotle, but which is no longer extant. His wording makes
it clear that he was familiar with the views of those writers who had earlier
written about the origin of geometry. He affirmed the earlier views that the
rudiments of geometry developed in Egypt because of the need to
re-define the boundaries, just as Herodotus stated.
Five Euclidean theorems have been explicitly
attributed to Thales, and the testimony is that Thales successfully applied two
theorems to the solution of practical problems.
Thales did not formulate proofs in the formal
sense. What Thales did was to put forward certain propositions which, it seems,
he could have 'proven' by induction: he observed the similar results of his
calculations: he showed by repeated experiment that his propositions and
theorems were correct, and if none of his calculations resulted in contrary
outcomes, he probably felt justified in accepting his results as proof. Thalean
'proof' was often really inductive demonstration. The process Thales used was
the method of exhaustion. This seems to be the evidence from Proclus who
declared that Thales 'attacked some problems in a general way and others more
empirically'.
DEFINITION I.17: A diameter of the circle is a
straight line drawn through the centre and terminated in both directions by the
circumference of the circle; and such a straight line also bisects the circle
(Proclus, 124). >
PROPOSITION I.5: In isosceles triangles the angles
at the base are equal; and if the equal straight lines are produced further,
the angles under the base will be equal (Proclus, 244). It seems that Thales
discovered only the first part of this theorem for Proclus reported: We are
indebted to old Thales for the discovery of this and many other theorems. For
he, it is said, was the first to notice and assert that in every isosceles the
angles at the base are equal, though in somewhat archaic fashion he called the
equal angles similar (Proclus, 250.18-251.2).
PROPOSITION I.15: 'If two straight lines cut one
another, they make the vertical angles equal to one another' (Proclus,
298.12-13). This theorem is positively attributed to Thales. Proof of the
theorem dates from the Elements of Euclid (Proclus, 299.2-5).
PROPOSITION I.26: 'If two triangles have the two
angles equal to two angles respectively, and one side equal to one side,
namely, either the side adjoining the equal angles, or that subtending one of
the equal angles, they will also have the remaining sides equal to the
remaining sides and the remaining angle equal to the remaining angle' (Proclus,
347.13-16). 'Eudemus in his history of geometry attributes the theorem itself
to Thales, saying that the method by which he is reported to have determined
the distance of ships at sea shows that he must have used it' (Proclus,
352.12-15). Thales applied this theorem to determine the height of a pyramid.
The great pyramid was already over two thousand years old when Thales visited
Gizeh, but its height was not known. Diogenes recorded that 'Hieronymus informs
us that [Thales] measured the height of the pyramids by the shadow they cast,
taking the observation at the hour when our shadow is of the same length as
ourselves' (D.L. I.27). Pliny (HN, XXXVI.XVII.82) and Plutarch (Conv.
sept. sap. 147) also recorded versions of the event. Thales was alerted by
the similarity of the two triangles, the 'quality of proportionality'. He
introduced the concept of ratio, and recognized its application as a general
principle. Thales's accomplishment of measuring the height of the pyramid is a
beautiful piece of mathematics. It is considered that the general principle in
Euclid I.26 was applied to the ship at sea problem, would have general
application to other distant objects or land features which posed difficulties
in the calculation of their distances.
PROPOSITION III.31: 'The angle in a semicircle is a
right angle'. Diogenes Laertius (I.27) recorded: 'Pamphila states that, having
learnt geometry from the Egyptians, [Thales] was the first to inscribe a
right-angled triangle in a circle, whereupon he sacrificed an ox'. Aristotle
was intrigued by the fact that the angle in a semi-circle is always right. In
two works, he asked the question: 'Why is the angle in a semicircle always a
right angle?' (An. Post. 94 a27-33; Metaph. 1051 a28). Aristotle
described the conditions which are necessary if the conclusion is to hold, but
did not add anything that assists with this problem.
It is testified that it was from Egypt that
Thales acquired the rudiments of geometry. However, the evidence is that the
Egyptian skills were in orientation, measurement, and calculation. Thales's
unique ability was with the characteristics of lines, angles and circles. He
recognized, noticed and apprehended certain principles which he probably
'proved' through repeated demonstration.
Herodotus recorded 'the general belief of the
Greeks' that Thales assisted Croesus in transporting his troops across the
Halys river (Hdt. I.75) on his advance into Capadoccia to engage the great
Persian conqueror, Cyrus who threatened from the east. Herodotus provided a
detailed description of the reported crossing which many of the Greeks supposed
had been accomplished through Thales's engineering skills and ingenuity (Hdt.
I.75). Herodotus had been told that Thales advised Croesus to divide the river
into two parts. The story is that Thales directed the digging so that the river
was diverted into two smaller streams, each of which could then be forded. The
story from Herodotus describes a formation similar to an oxbow lake. The work
could have been undertaken by the men of Croesus's army, and directed by
Thales. With both channels then being fordable, Croesus could lead his army
across the Halys. This description complies with 'the general belief of the Greeks'
which Herodotus related.
However, Herodotus did not accept that story,
because he believed that bridges crossed the river at that time (I.74).
Herodotus's misgivings were well founded. There is considerable support for the
argument that Croesus and his army crossed the Halys by the bridge which
already existed and travelled by the Royal
Road which provided the main access to the East.
Herodotus explained that at the Halys there were gates which had to be passed
before one crossed the river, which formed the border, with the post being
strongly guarded (Hdt. V.52).
The town of Cesnir
Kopru, or Tcheshnir Keupreu, is a feasible site for a
crossing. Before the industrialization of the area, a mediaeval bridge was
observed, underneath which, when the river was low, could be seen not only the
remains of its Roman predecessor but the roughly hewn blocks of a much earlier
bridge (Garstang, 1959, 2). Any clues that may have helped to provide an answer
to the question of whether there were bridges in the time of Croesus are now
submerged by the hydroelectric plants which have been built in the area.
Herodotus recorded the details that he had obtained, but used his own different
understanding of the situation to discount the report.
Establishing whether or not Thales travelled and
what countries he visited is important because we may be able to establish what
information he could have acquired from other sources. In Epinomis 987
E) Plato made the point that the Greeks took from foreigners what was of value
and developed their notions into better ideas.
Eudemus, who was one of Aristotle's students,
believed that Thales had travelled to Egypt (Eudemus ap. Proclus, 65.7).
A number of ancient sources support that opinion, including Pamphila who held
that he spent time with the Egyptian priests (D.L. I.24), Hieronymus from whose
report we learn that Thales measured the height of the pyramids by the shadow
they cast (D.L. I.27), and Plutarch (De Is. et Os. 131). Thales gave an
explanation for the inundation (D.L. I.37). He may have devised this
explanation after witnessing the phenomena, which Herodotus later described
(Hdt. II.97).
By 620 B.C.E., and perhaps earlier, Miletus held a trading concession at Naucratis
(Hdt. II.178, Strab. 17.1.18) on the Canopic mouth of the Nile, and it is
possible that Thales visited Egypt
on a trading mission. Travel to Egypt
would not have been difficult. Homer had Ulysses sailing from Crete to the Nile
in five days, and Ernle Bradford recently made a similar journey, proving the
trip to be feasible (Bradford, Ulysses Found, 26, and passim). The
wealth of Miletus was the result of its success
as a trading centre, and there would have been no difficulty in arranging
passage on one of the many vessels which traded through of Miletus.
Josephus (Contra Apionem I.2) wrote that
Thales was a disciple of the Egyptians and the Chaldeans which suggests that he
visited the Near-East. It is thought that Thales visited the Babylonians and
Chaldeans and had access to the astrological records which enabled him to
predict the solar eclipse of 585 B.C.E.
Miletus had founded many colonies
around the Mediterranean and especially along the coasts of the Black Sea. Pliny (HN, V.31.112) gives the number
as ninety. The Milesians traded their goods for raw materials, especially iron
and timber, and tunny fish. Strabo made mention of 'a sheep-industry', and the
yield of 'soft wool' (Strabo, 12.3.13), and Aristophanes mentioned the fine and
luxurious Milesian wool (Lysistrata, 729; Frogs, 543). The
Milesian traders had access to the hinterland. The land around the mouth of the
Halys was fertile, 'productive of everything . . . and planted with olive
trees' (Strabo, 12.3.12-13). Thales was associated with a commercial venture in
the production of olive oil in Miletus and Chios, but his interests may have extended beyond those
two places. Olive oil was a basic item in the Mediterranean diet, and was
probably a trading commodity of some importance to Milesian commerce.
It is likely that Thales was one of the 'great
teachers' who, according to Herodotus, visited Croesus in the Lydian capital, Sardis (Hdt. I.30). From Sardis, he could have joined a caravan to make the
three-month journey along the well used Royal Road (Hdt. V.53), to visit the observatories
in Babylonia, and seek the astronomical
knowledge which they had accumulated over centuries of observation of heavenly
phenomena. In about 547 B.C.E. late in his life, Thales travelled into Cappadocia with Croesus, and, according to some belief,
devised a scheme by which the army of Croesus was able to cross the River
Halys. Milesian merchantmen continually plied the Black
Sea, and gaining a passage could have been easily arranged. From
any number of ports Thales could have sought information, and from Sinope he
may have ventured on the long journey to Babylonia, perhaps travelling along
the valley of the Tigris, as Xenophon did in
401-399 B.C.E.
In a letter purported to be from Thales to
Pherecydes, Thales stated that he and Solon had both visited Crete, and Egypt to confer with the priests and
astronomers, and all over Hellas and Asia
(D.L. I.43-44). All that should be gleaned from such reports, is that travel
was not exceptional, with many reports affirming the visits of mainly notable
people to foreign lands. Alcaeus visited Egypt'
(Strabo, 1.2.30), and his brother, Antimenidas, served in Judaea
in the army of the Babylonian monarch, King Nebuchadrezzar. Sappho went into
exile in Sicily, her brother,Charaxus, spent
some time in Egypt, and a number
of friends of Sappho visited Sardis
where they lived in Lydian society. There must have been any number of people
who visited foreign lands, about whom we know nothing.
Very little about the travels of Thales may be
stated with certainty, but it seems probable that he would have sought
information from any sources of knowledge and wisdom, particularly the centres
of learning in the Near-East. It is accepted that there was ample opportunity
for travel.
Thales was the founder of a new school of
philosophy (Arist. Metaph. 983 b20). His two fellow Milesians who also
engaged in the new questioning approach to the understanding of the universe,
were Anaximander, his disciple (D.L. I.13), and Anaximenes, who was the
disciple of Anaximander (D.L. II.2). Anaximander was about ten years younger
than Thales, but survived him by only a year, dying in about 545. Anaximenes
was born in 585 and died in about 528. Their lives all overlapped. Through
their association they comprised the Milesian
School: They all worked
on similar problems, the nature of matter and the nature of change, but they
each proposed a different material as the primary principle, which indicates
that there was no necessity to follow the master's teachings or attribute their
discoveries to him. Each proposed a different support for the earth. Thales was
held in high regard for his wisdom, being acclaimed as the most eminent of the
Wise Men of Ancient Greece, but he was not regarded as a god, as Pythagoras
was. Anaximander and Anaximenes were free to pursue their own ideas and to
express them in writing. This surely suggests that they engaged in critical
discussion of the theories of each other. The Greeks are a sociable people, and
their willingness to converse brought rewards in knowledge gained, as Plato
remarked (Epinomis, 987E). Critical discussion implies more than
familiarity with other views, and more than mere disagreement with other
theories. It is the adoption, or in this case, the development, of a new style
of discussion. It is a procedure which encourages questioning, debate,
explanation, justification and criticism. There was a unique relationship
between the three Milesians and it is highly probable that the critical method
developed in the Milesian
School under the leadership
of Thales.
The earliest reference to the Seven Sages of
Ancient Greece is in Plato's Protagoras in which he listed seven names: 'A
man's ability to utter such remarks [notable, short and compressed] is to be
ascribed to his perfect education. Such men were Thales of Miletus, Pittacus of
Mitylene, Bias of Priene, Solon of our city [Athens],
Cleobulus of Lindus, Myson of Chen, and, last of the traditional seven, Chilon
of Sparta. . .
. and you can recognize that character in their wisdom by the short memorable
sayings that fell from each of them' (Protagoras, 342 E-343 A).
Diogenes recorded that 'Thales was the first to
receive the name of Sage in the archonship of Damasias at Athens, when the term was applied to all the
Seven Sages, as Demetrius of Phalerum [born. ca. 350 B.C] mentions in his List
of Archons (D.L. I.22). Demetrius cannot have been the source for Plato, who
died when Demetrius was only three years old. Perhaps there was a source common
to both Plato and Demetrius, but it is unknown.
Damasias was archon in 582/1. It may be significant
that at this time the Pythian Games were re-organized. More events were added
and, for the first time, they were to be held at intervals of four years, in
the third year of the Olympiad, instead of the previous eight-yearly intervals.
Whether there is an association between the re-organization of the Pythian
Games and the inauguration of the Seven Sages in not known but, as Pausanias
indicates, the Seven were selected from all around Greece: 'These [the sages]
were: from Ionia, Thales of Miletus and Bias of Priene; of the Aeolians in
Lesbos, Pittacus of Mitylene; of the Dorians in Asia, Cleobulus of Lindus;
Solon of Athens and Chilon of Sparta; the seventh sage, according to the list
of Plato, the son of Ariston is not Periander, the son of Cypselus, but Myson
of Chenae, a village on Mount Oeta' (Paus. 14.1). The purpose of Damasias may
have been aimed at establishing unity between the city-states.
It is difficult to believe that the Seven all
assembled at Delphi, although the dates just
allow it. Plato wrote that their notable maxims were featured at Delphi: 'They [the Sages], assembled together and
dedicated these [short memorable sayings] as the first-fruits of their lore to
Apollo in his Delphic temple, inscribing there those maxims which are on every
tongue - "Know thyself' and "Nothing overmuch" ' (Pl. Prt.
343 A-B).
Plato regarded wise maxims as the most essential of
the criteria for a sage, and associated them with wisdom and with good
education, but he has Socrates say: 'Think again of all the ingenious devices
in arts or other achievements, such as you might expect in one of practical
ability; you might remember Thales of Miletus and Anacharsis the Scythian' (Respublica
, 600 A).
Practical ability was clearly important.
Several other lists were compiled: Hippobotus (D.L.
I.42); Pittacus (D.L. I.42); and Diogenes (D.L. I.13. They omitted some names
and adding others. In his work On the Sages, Hermippus reckons seventeen,
which included most of the names listed by other compilers.
Many commentators state that Thales was named as
Sage because of the practical advice he gave to Miletus
in particular, and to Ionia in general. The
earlier advice was to his fellow Milesians. In 560, the thirty-five year old
Croesus (Hdt. I.25) succeeded his father Alyattes and continued the efforts
begun by his father to subdue the Milesians, but without success. Diogenes
tells us that 'when Croesus sent to Miletus
offering terms of alliance, [Thales] frustrated the plan' (D.L. I.25). The
second occasion was at an even later date, when the power of Cyrus loomed as a
threat from the east. Thales's advice to the Ionian states was to unite in a
political alliance, so that their unified strength could be a defence against
the might of Cyrus. This can hardly have been prior to 550 B.C.E. which is
thirty years later than the promulgation of the Seven Sages. Thales was not
named as a Sage because of any political advice which is extant.
One of the few dates in Thales's life which can be
known with certainty is the date of the Eclipse of 585 B.C.E. It brought to a
halt the battle being fought between Alyattes and the Mede, Cyaxares and, in
addition, brought peace to the region after 'five years of indecisive warfare'
(Hdt. I.74). The Greeks believed that Thales had predicted the Eclipse, and
perhaps even regarded him as being influential in causing the phenomenon to
occur. This was reason enough to declare Thales to be a man of great wisdom and
to designate him as the first of the Seven Sages of Ancient Greece.
Thales's reputation for wisdom is further enhanced
in a story which was related by Aristotle. (Politics, 1259 a 6-23). Somehow,
through observation of the heavenly bodies, Thales concluded that there would
be a bumper crop of olives. He raised the money to put a deposit on the olive
presses of Miletus and Chios,
so that when the harvest was ready, he was able to let them out at a rate which
brought him considerable profit. In this way, Thales answered those who
reproached him for his poverty. As Aristotle points out, the scheme has
universal application, being nothing more than a monopoly. There need not have
been a bumper harvest for the scheme to have been successful. It is quite
likely that Thales was involved in commercial ventures, possibly the export of
olive oil, and Plutarch reported that Thales was said to have engaged in trade
(Plut. Vit. Sol. II.4).
Thales is the first person about whom we know to
propose explanations of natural phenomena which were materialistic rather than
mythological or theological. His theories were new, bold, exciting,
comprehensible, and possible of explanation. He did not speak in riddles as did
Heraclitus, and had no need to invent an undefined non-substance, as
Anaximander did. Because he gave no role to mythical beings, Thales's theories
could be refuted. Arguments could be put forward in attempts to discredit them.
Thales's hypotheses were rational and scientific. Aristotle acknowledged Thales
as the first philosopher, and criticized his hypotheses in a scientific manner.
The most outstanding aspects of Thales's heritage
are: The search for knowledge for its own sake; the development of the
scientific method; the adoption of practical methods and their development into
general principles; his curiosity and conjectural approach to the questions of
natural phenomena - In the sixth century B.C.E., Thales asked the question,
'What is the basic material of the cosmos?' The answer is yet to be discovered.
- Ernle Bradford. Ulysses Found. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1964.
- Britton, John P. "An Early Function for Eclipse Magnitudes in Babylonian Astronomy." Centaurus, 32 (1989): 32.
- Britton, John P. "Scientific Astronomy in Pre-Seleucid Babylon." Chapter in H.D. Galter, Die Rolle der Astronomy in den Kulteren Mesopotamiens. Graz: 1993.
- Garstang, John and O.R. Gurney. The Geography of the Hittite Empire. Occasional Publications of The British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, no. 5. London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1959.
- Proclus. A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Glenn R Morrow. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.
- Ptolemy. Ptolemy'snAlmagest. Translated and Annotated by G.J. Toomer. London: Duckworth, 1984.
- Snell, Bruno. "Die Nachrichten über die Lehren des Thales und die Anfänge der griechischen Philosophie - und Literaturgeschichte." [The News about the Teachings of Thales and the Beginnings of the Greek History of Philosophy and Literature], Philologus 96 (1944): 170-182.
- Steele, John M."Eclipse Prediction in Mesopotamia." Archive for History of Exact Science 54 (5) (2000):421-454.
- Stephenson, F. Richard, and L.V. Morrison. "Long-term fluctuations in the Earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London351 (1995): 165-202.
- Aristotle, An. Post., Analytica Posteriora; Cael., De Caelo; De An., De Anima; Gen An., De Generatione Animalium; Hist. An., Historia Animalium; Metaph., Metaphysics; Pol., Politics; Hist. An.; Historia Animalium
- Cicero, Rep., De Republica; Nat. D., De Natura Deorum
- D.L., Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers
- Diels,Dox., H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci
- DK, Diels, Hermann and Walther Kranz.Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Zurich: Weidmann, 1985.
- Epicurus, ap.Censorinus, D.N.; Censorinus, De die natali
- Ovid,Met., Metamorphoses
- Plutarch,Plut. De Is. et Os., De Iside et Osiride; De Pyth. or., De Pythiae oraculis; Conv. sept. sap., Convivium septem sapientium, [The Dinner of the Seven Wise Men];; Vit. Sol., Vitae Parallelae, Solon
- Pliny (the Elder), HN: Naturalis Historia
- Pliny (the Younger), Ep: Epistulae
- Ps.-Plutarch, Epit;Pseudo-Plutarch, Epitome
- Seneca, QNat., Quaestiones Naturales
- Stobaeus, Ecl., jEklogaiv ['Selections']
- Theophr. ap. Simpl. Phys., Theophrastus, ap. Simplicius, in Physics
Author Information
Patricia O'Grady
Email: Patricia.OGrady@flinders.edu.au
The Flinders University of South Australia
Australia
Email: Patricia.OGrady@flinders.edu.au
The Flinders University of South Australia
Australia
DOXOGRAFIA - TALES
DE MILETO
TALES, DE ASCENDÊNCIA fenícia, era natural da Jônia, na Ásia Menor,
cidade famosa pelo florescente comércio marítimo, pátria também de Anaximandro
e Anaxímenes. Floresceu2 pelo ano de 585 a.C. Segundo a tradição, é o primeiro
físico grego ou investigador das coisas da natureza como um todo. De suas
idéias, no entanto, pouco se conhece; nem há certeza de que tenha escrito um
livro. Também não se conhecem fragmentos seus. Sua doutrina só nos foi
transmitida pelos doxógrafos.
1. ARISTÓTELES, Metafísica, I, 3. 983 b 6 (DK 11 A 12).
A. Maior parte dos
primeiros filósofos considerava como os únicos princípios de todas as coisas os
que são da natureza da matéria. Aquilo de que todos os seres são constituídos,
e de que primeiro são gerados e em que por fim se dissolvem, enquanto a
substância subsiste mudando-se apenas as afecções, tal é, para eles, o elemento
(stokheion), tal é o princípio dos seres; e por isso julgam que nada se gera
nem se destrói, como se tal natureza subsistisse sempre... Pois deve haver uma
natureza qualquer, ou mais do que uma, donde as outras coisas se engendram, mas
continuando ela a mesma. Quanto ao número e à natureza destes princípios, nem
todos dizem o mesmo. Tales, o fundador de tal filosofia, diz ser água [o
princípio] (é por este motivo também que ele declarou que a terra está sobre
água), levado sem dúvida a esta concepção por ver que o alimento de todas as
coisas é úmido, e que o próprio quente dele procede e dele vive (ora, aquilo de
que as coisas vêm é, para todos, o seu princípio). Por tal observar adotou esta
concepção, e pelo fato de as sementes de todas as coisas terem a natureza
úmida; e a água é o princípio da natureza para as coisas úmidas. Alguns há que
pensam que também os mais antigos, bem anteriores à nossa geração, e os
primeiros a tratar dos deuses,(2) teriam a respeito da natureza formado a mesma
concepção. Pois consideram Oceano e Tétis os pais da geração e o juramento dos
deuses a água, chamada pelos poetas de Estige; pois o mais venerável é o mais
antigo; ora, o juramento é o mais venerável.
(1) A numeração da
Doxografia é desta edição, dando-se a numeração de Diels-Kranz entre
parênteses. Quanto aos Fragmentos, conservou-se a numeração de Diels-Kranz. (N.
do E)
(2) Em grego,
theologésantas = tendo teologizado. (N. do E.)
2. SIMPLÍCIO, Física, 23, 22 (DK 11 A 13).
Alguns dos que
afirmam um só princípio de movimento — Aristóteles, propriamente, chama-os de
físicos — consideram que ele é limitado; assim Tales de Mileto, filho de
Examias, e Hipão, que parece ter sido ateu, afirmavam que água é o princípio,
tendo sido levados a isto pelas (coisas) que lhes apareciam segundo a sensação;
pois o quente vive com o úmido, as coisas mortas ressecam-se, as sementes de
todas as coisas são úmidas e todo alimento é suculento. Donde é cada coisa,
disto se alimenta naturalmente: água é o princípio da natureza úmida e é
continente de todas as coisas; por isso supuseram que a água é princípio de
tudo e afirmaram que a terra está deitada sobre ela. Os que supõem um só
elemento afirmam-no ilimitado em extensão, como Tales diz da água.
3. ARISTÓTELES, Da Alma, 5, 422 a 7 (DK 11 A 22).
E afirmam alguns
que ela (a alma) está misturada com o todo. É por isso que, talvez, também
Tales pensou que todas as coisas estão cheias de deuses. Cf. Platão Leis, X,
899 B. Parece também que Tales, pelo que se conta, supôs que a alma é algo que
se move, se é que disse que a pedra (ímã) tem alma, porque move o ferro.
B - CRÍTICA MODERNA
1. Georg W. F. Hegel
A PROPOSIÇÃO DE
Tales de que a água é o absoluto ou, como diziam os antigos, o princípio, é
filosófica; com ela, a Filosofia começa, porque através dela chega à
consciência de que o um é a essência, o verdadeiro, o único que é em si e para
si. Começa aqui um distanciar-se daquilo que é em nossa percepção sensível; um
afastar-se deste ente imediato — um recuar diante dele. Os gregos consideram o
sol, as montanhas, os rios, etc. como forças autônomas, honrando-os como
deuses, elevados pela fantasia a seres ativos, móveis, conscientes, dotados de
vontade. Isto gera em nós a representação da pura criação pela fantasia —
animação infinita e universal, figuração, sem unidade simples. Com esta
proposição está aquietada a imaginação selvagem, infinitamente colorida, de
Homero; este dissociar-se de uma infinidade de princípios, toda esta
representação de que um objeto singular é algo que verdadeiramente subsiste
para si, que é uma força para si, autônoma e acima das outras, é sobressumida
(3) e assim está posto que só há um universal, o universal ser em si e para si,
a intuição simples e sem fantasia, o pensamento de que apenas um é. Este
universal está, ao mesmo tempo, em relação com o singular, com a aparição, com
a existência do mundo.
(3) Original
alemão: aufgehoben. (N. do E,)
O primeiro estado
de coisas que reside no que foi dito é o fato de que a existência singular não
possui autonomia alguma, não é nada de verdadeiro em si e para si, apenas algo
acidental, uma modificação. Mas 0 estado de coisas afirmativo é que do um
emerge todo o resto, que o um permanece nisto a substância de todo o resto,
sendo unicamente uma determinação casual e exterior pela qual a existência
singular se torna; também a situação de que toda existência singular é
passageira, isto é, que perde a forma do singular e novamente torna-se
universal, água. Isto é o elemento filosófico, que o um seja o verdadeiro.
Aquela separação do absoluto do finito é, portanto, enfrentada: mas ela não
deve ser tomada assim que o um se situe do lado de lá e aqui o mundo finito —
como ocorre muitas vezes na representação comum de Deus, representação em que se
atribui ao mundo uma constância, em que muitas vezes se representem dois tipos
de uma realidade, um mundo sensível e um supra-sensível da mesma dignidade. O
ponto de vista filosófico é que somente o um é a realidade verdadeiramente
efetiva: real deve ser tomado aqui em sua alta significação — na vida cotidiana
chamamos tudo de real.
O segundo aspecto a
considerar é que o princípio entre os filósofos antigos possui, primeiro, uma
forma física determinada. Vê-se certamente que a água é um elemento, um momento
no todo em geral, uma força física universal; mas outra coisa é que a água seja
uma existência singular como todas as outras coisas naturais. Temos esta
consciência — a necessidade da unidade nos impele para isso — de reconhecer
algo universal para as coisas singulares; mas a água também é uma coisa
singular. Aqui está a falha; aquilo que deve ser verdadeiro princípio não
precisa ter uma forma unilateral e singular, mas a diferença mesma deve ser de
natureza universal. A forma deve ser totalidade da forma; isto é a atividade e
a autoconsciência mais alta do princípio espiritual, que a forma se tenha
elevado pelo esforço para a forma absoluta — o princípio do espiritual. Isto é
o mais profundo e, assim, o que vem por último. Aqueles princípios são figuras singulares,
e isto é, por conseguinte, o aspecto falho. A passagem do universal para o
singular é, portanto, um ponto essencial e ele entra na determinação da
atividade: para isto existe então a necessidade.
(Preleções sobre a
História da Filosofia, pp. 203-205)
2. Friedrich Nietzsche
III. A filosofia
grega parece começar com uma ideia absurda, com a proposição: a água é a origem
e a matriz de todas as coisas. Será mesmo necessário deter-nos nela e levá-la a
sério? Sim, e por três razões: em primeiro lugar, porque essa proposição
enuncia algo sobre a origem das coisas; em segundo lugar, porque faz sem imagem
e fabulação; e enfim, em terceiro lugar, porque nela, embora apenas em estado
de crisálida, está contido o pensamento: "Tudo é um". A razão citada
em primeiro lugar deixa Tales ainda em comunidade com os religiosos e
supersticiosos, a segunda o tira dessa sociedade e no-lo mostra como
investigador da natureza, mas, em virtude da terceira, Tales se torna o
primeiro filósofo grego. Se tivesse dito: "Da água provém a terra",
teríamos apenas uma hipótese científica, falsa, mas dificilmente refutável. Mas
ele foi além do científico. Ao expor essa representação de unidade através da
hipótese da água, Tales não superou o estágio inferior das noções físicas da
época, mas, no máximo, saltou por sobre ele. As parcas e desordenadas
observações da natureza empírica que Tales havia feito sobre a presença e as
transformações da água ou, mais exatamente, do úmido, seriam o que menos
permitiria ou mesmo aconselharia tão monstruosa generalização; o que o impeliu
a esta foi um postulado metafísico, uma crença que tem sua origem em uma
intuição mística e que encontramos em todos os filósofos, ao lado dos esforços
sempre renovados para exprimi-la melhor — a proposição: "Tudo é um".
E notável a
violência tirânica com que essa crença trata toda a empiria: exatamente em
Tales se pode aprender como procedeu a filosofia, em todos os tempos, quando
queria elevar-se a seu alvo magicamente atraente, transpondo as cercas da
experiência. Sobre leves esteios, ela salta para diante: a esperança e o
pressentimento põem asas em seus pés. Pesadamente, o entendimento calculador
arqueja em seu encalço e busca esteios melhores para também alcançar aquele
alvo sedutor, ao qual sua companheira mais divina já chegou. Dir-se-ia ver dois
andarilhos diante de um regato selvagem, que corre rodopiando pedras; o
primeiro, com pés ligeiros, salta por sobre ele, usando as pedras e apoiando-se
nelas para lançar-se mais adiante, ainda que, atrás dele, afundem bruscamente
nas profundezas. O outro, a todo instante, detém-se desamparado, precisa antes
construir fundamentos que sustentem seu passo pesado e cauteloso; por vezes
isso não dá resultado e, então, não há deus que possa auxiliá-lo a transpor o
regato.
O que, então, leva
o pensamento filosófico tão rapidamente a seu alvo?
Acaso ele se
distingue do pensamento calculador e mediador por seu voo mais veloz através de
grandes espaços? Não, pois seu pé é alçado por uma potência alheia, lógica, a
fantasia. Alçado por esta, ele salta adiante, de possibilidade em
possibilidade, que por um momento são tomadas por certezas; aqui e ali, ele
mesmo apanha certezas em voo.
Um pressentimento genial as mostra a ele e adivinha de longe
que nesse ponto há certezas demonstráveis. Mas, em particular, a fantasia tem o
poder de captar e iluminar como um relâmpago as semelhanças: mais tarde, a
reflexão vem trazer seus critérios e padrões e procura substituir as
semelhanças por igualdades, as contiguidades por causalidades.
Mas, mesmo que isso nunca seja possível, mesmo no caso de Tales, o filosofar indemonstrável tem ainda um valor; mesmo que estejam rompidos todos os esteios quando a lógica é a rigidez da empirica quiseram chegar até a proposição "Tudo é água", fica ainda, sempre, depois de destroçado o edifício científico, um resto; e precisamente nesse resto há uma força propulsora e como que a esperança de uma futura fecundidade.
Naturalmente não
quero dizer que o pensamento, em alguma limitação ou enfraquecimento, ou como
alegoria, conserva ainda, talvez, uma espécie de "verdade": assim
como, por exemplo, quando se pensa em um artista plástico diante de uma queda
d'água, e ele vê, nas formas que saltam ao seu encontro, um jogo artístico e
pre-figurador da água, com corpos de homens e de animais, máscaras, plantas,
falésias, ninfas, grifos e, em geral, com todos os protótipos possíveis: de tal
modo que, para ele, a proposição "Tudo é água" estaria confirmada. O
pensamento de Tales, ao contrário, tem seu valor — mesmo depois do conhecimento
de que é indemonstrável — em pretender ser, em todo caso, não-místico e
não-alegórico.
Os gregos, entre os
quais Tales subitamente destacou tanto, eram o oposto de todos os realistas,
pois propriamente só acreditavam na realidade dos homens e dos deuses e
consideravam a natureza inteira como que apenas um disfarce, mascaramento e
metamorfose desses homens-deuses. O homem era para eles a verdade e o núcleo
das coisas, todo o resto apenas aparência e jogo ilusório. Justamente por isso
era tão incrivelmente difícil para eles captar os conceitos como conceitos: e,
ao inverso dos modernos, entre os quais mesmo o mais pessoal se sublima em
abstrações, entre eles o mais abstrato sempre confluía de novo em uma pessoa.
Mas Tales dizia: "Não é o homem, mas a água, a realidade das coisas";
ele começa a acreditar na natureza, na medida em que, pelo menos, acredita na
água. Como matemático e astrônomo, ele se havia tornado frio e insensível a
todo o místico e o alegórico e, se não logrou alcançar a sobriedade da pura
proposição "Tudo é um" e se deteve em uma expressão física, ele era,
contudo, entre os gregos de seu tempo, uma estranha raridade.
Talvez os
admiráveis órficos possuíssem a capacidade de captar abstrações e de pensar sem
imagens, em um grau ainda superior a ele: mas estes só chegaram a exprimi-lo na
forma da alegoria. Também Ferécides de Siros, que está próximo de Tales no
tempo e em muitas das concepções físicas, oscila, ao exprimi-las, naquela
região intermediária em que o mito se casa com a alegoria: de tal modo que, por
exemplo, se aventura a comparar a Terra com um carvalho alado, suspenso no ar
com as asas abertas, e que Zeus, depois de sobrepujar Kronos, reveste de um
faustoso manto de honra, onde bordou, com sua própria mão, as terras, águas e
rios. Contraposto a esse filosofar obscuramente alegórico, que mal se deixa
traduzir em imagens visuais, Tales é um mestre criador, que, sem fabulação
fantástica, começou a ver a natureza em suas profundezas. Se para isso se
serviu, sem dúvida, da ciência e do demonstrável, mas logo saltou por sobre
eles, isso é igualmente um caráter típico da cabeça filosófica.
A palavra grega que
designa o "sábio" se prende, etimologicamente, a sapio, eu saboreio,
sapiens, o degustador, sisyphos, o homem do gosto mais apurado; um apurado
degustar e distinguir, um significativo discernimento, constitui, pois, segundo
a consciência do povo, a arte peculiar do filósofo. Este não é prudente, se
chamamos de prudente àquele que, em seus assuntos próprios, sabe descobrir o
bem. Aristóteles diz com razão: "Aquilo que Tales e Anaxágoras sabem será
chamado de insólito, assombroso, difícil, divino, mas inútil, porque eles não
se importavam com os bens humanos". Ao escolher e discriminar assim o
insólito, assombroso, difícil, divino, a filosofia marca o limite que a separa
da ciência, do mesmo modo que, ao preferir o inútil, marca o limite que a
separa da prudência. A ciência, sem essa seleção, sem esse refinamento de
gosto, precipita-se sobre tudo o que é possível saber, na cega avidez de querer
conhecer a qualquer preço; enquanto o pensar filosófico está sempre no rastro
das coisas dignas de serem sabidas, dos conhecimentos importantes e grandes.
Mas o conceito de grandeza é mutável, tanto no domínio moral quanto no estético:
assim a filosofia começa por legislar sobre a grandeza, a ela se prende uma
doação de nomes. "Isto é grande", diz ela, e com isso eleva o homem
acima da avidez cega, desenfreada, de seu impulso ao conhecimento.
Pelo conceito de
grandeza, ela refreia esse impulso: ainda mais por considerar o conhecimento
máximo, da essência e do núcleo das coisas, como alcançável e alcançado. Quando
Tales diz: 'Tudo é água", o homem estremece e se ergue do tatear e
rastejar vermiformes das ciências isoladas, pressente a solução última das
coisas e vence, com esse pressentimento, o acanhamento dos graus inferiores do
conhecimento. O filósofo busca ressoar em si mesmo o clangor total do mundo e,
de si mesmo, expô-lo em conceitos; enquanto é contemplativo como o artista plástico,
compassivo como o religioso, à espreita de fins e causalidades como o homem de
ciência, enquanto se sente dilatar-se até a dimensão do macro-cosmo, conserva a
lucidez para considerar-se friamente como o reflexo do mundo, essa lucidez que
tem o artista dramático quando se transforma em outros corpos, fala a partir
destes e, contudo, sabe projetar essa transformação para o exterior, em versos
escritos. O que é o verso para o poeta, aqui, é para o filósofo o pensar
dialético: é deste que ele lança mão para fixar-se em seu enfeitiçamento, para
petrificá-lo. E assim como, para o dramaturgo, palavra e verso são apenas o
balbucio em uma língua estrangeira, para dizer nela o que viveu e contemplou e
que, diretamente, só poderia anunciar pelos gestos e pela música, assim a
expressão daquela intuição filosófica profunda pela dialética e pela reflexão
científica é, decerto, por um lado, o único meio de comunicar o contemplado,
mas um meio raquítico, no fundo uma transposição metafórica, totalmente infiel,
em uma esfera e língua diferentes.
Assim contemplou Tales a unidade de tudo o que é: e quando quis comunicar-se, falou da água!
(A Filosofia na Época
Trágica dos Gregos, § 3)
(4) Os Filósofos Trágicos. Este título, que deve ser tomado estritamente em sentido nietzschiano, não é de Nietzsche: apenas obedece a uma indicação do autor, que diz: "Os filósofos antigos, os eleatas, Heráclito, Empédocles, são filósofos trágicos". Também não se trata de um livro de Nietzsche, mas de uma reunião de textos sobre os pré-socráticos. Os cinco primeiros pertencem ao ensaio A Filosofia na Época Trágica dos Gregos, de 1873 (edição Krõner, vol- I). Os três últimos são notas e planos de curso, do vol. XIX das Obras Completas* (edição de 1903). Assim prevenido de que este é um livro artificial, o leitor poderá também desmontá-lo* e aproveitá-lo em pelo meros dois sentidos muito fecundos: como suplemento ao estudo dos pré-socráticos ou como via de acesso à compreensão de Nietzsche. (N. do T.) " E o que se fez nesta edição, destacando cada parte para o respectivo pré-socrático comentado. (N. do E.)
Fonte: Os Pré-Socráticos - Vida e Obra, Editora Nova - Cultural Ltda., São Paulo. Seleção de textos e supervisão: Prof. José Cavalcante de Souza - Dados biográficos: Remberto Francisco Kuhnen - ISBN 85-351-0694-4
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário