The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists (Oxford World's Classics)

I originally read "The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists. Translated with Commentary" over a decade ago, shortly after it appeared in 2000; probably 2002-2003, since I also read Jonathan Barnes' "Early Greek Philosophy" (Penguin Classics, 1987, second edition 2002) at about the same time. I've recently (2013) been re-reading "First Philosophers" in the Kindle edition (using the Kindle app for Macs), and, by-and-large, I am quite happy with the digital format. (The Indexes and Concordance lack hyperlinks, which makes their (page) references difficult to use.) The book forms a short introduction to, and a well-selected reader of, early Greek thought. Its viewpoint is not revolutionary, but it is far more up-to-date than many of the standard introductory works, some of which go back to the 1950s, and, on the Internet, even (due to the miracles of technology and lapse of copyright) to the late nineteenth century.) For example, in reference to the search for the fundamental substance of the world, Waterfield quite casually makes use of the term "paradigm shift," introduced to the philosophy and history of science by Thomas Kuhn in the 1960s. It was therefore unavailable to G.S. Kirk and J.E. Raven in the first edition of "The Presocratic Philosophers" (1959; second edition, with M. Schofield, 1983), an invaluable collection of Greek (and some Latin) texts, with translations and commentary, which can be used as a more demanding follow-up to "The First Philosophers." If already in use, it would have simplified their discussion of the transition from "mythical" to "philosophical" thinking. As the full title indicates, this hefty little volume (400 pages) combines presentations of what are traditionally regarded as two different types of thinkers, the Pre-Socratics and the Sophists. (Penguin Classics has a separate volume devoted to the latter.) The former group, the Presocratics, are generally Greek thinkers who for the most part lived or taught before Socrates (c. 470-399 BCE), although a few were his contemporaries. They are generally thought of as the founders of Philosophy (or Western Philosophy, for those who keep in mind the thinkers of, e.g., India and China). Their works survive, if at all, almost entirely in short quotations by later writers, plus a few passages on papyrus. Their doctrines were largely transmitted by Plato and Aristotle, and their students, who were not fully sympathetic to, or fully aware of, their teachings: a problem I have discussed in a review of the (rather old, but helpful) book by A.E. Taylor on "Aristotle on His Predecessors." A no-longer-quite-complete translation of the fragments, as collected in the nineteenth century in Diels' "Fragmente der Vorsokratiker," is Kathleen Freeman's "Ancilla to Pre-Socratic Philosophers" (1948). (The more recent books mentioned here refer to the collection as Diels-Kranz, referring to a somewhat up-dated edition prepared by another editor.) This is purely a translation, without commentary or additional bibliography, a situation I have explained in a review of the slender volume. These thinkers were concerned, as mentioned, with the fundamental nature of the world, and are sometimes regarded as proto-scientists, although, as Waterfield points out, that strains the evidence even for those most concerned with the natural world. And that approach creates difficulties when dealing with, for example, Empedocles, who seems to have been a kind of holy man, or Parmenides, who taught the non-reality of the world of the senses. For this "primitive science" approach, the classic presentation in English was by John Burnet (1863-1928) "Early Greek Philosophy," (1892, fourth edition 1930), which is available in Kindle format (re-edited as a "Fifth Edition," 2010), alongside his somewhat more technical "Greek Philosophy: From Thales to Plato" (first edition 1914; re-edited Kindle "Second Edition," 2010). The latter term in the title, "Sophist" ("wise man" -- often with overtones of cleverness or cunning), refers to certain contemporaries (and successors) of Socrates, professed teachers, to whose thought Plato (and, following him, Aristotle) denied the name of philosophy ("love of wisdom"). They have long been associated with the cultivation of rhetoric, rather than logic; some of them definitely regarded their teachings as a road to political success and social prestige in the competitive world of the Greek polis (city-state). The Second Sophistic, under the early Roman Emperors, was largely, although not entirely, a movement to revive rhetoric as a kind of edifying art. (It has been argued that the Epistles to the Corinthians show that some early Christians regarded Paul as a special kind of Sophist; an idea made more plausible if one considers the miracles attributed to one of these latter-day Sophists, Apollonius of Tyana.) Some modern scholars have pointed out that some of the Sophists, whether or not they collected paying students (which the aristocratic Plato professed to find shocking), had rational systems of thought, and that their reputation for shoddy reasoning derives from "outrageous" doctrines held by some of them: such as maintaining that slavery was wrong; that Barbarians were as good as Greeks; that Women were equal to Men; and that apparent inequalities were due to upbringing, not essential nature. Waterfield attributes to Socrates the revolutionary question (among others) of how it is that we are *able* to know things -- the approach that much later (the 1850s!) would come to be known as epistemology. It is in terms of this issue that the term "Presocratic" makes the most sense. Just chronologically, one would prefer Nietzsche's suggestion of "Pre-Platonic," particularly since Plato is the first systematic thinker for whom a substantial body of literature survives. (And our view of Socrates is largely informed by the presentations of Plato himself, and his philosophically less sophisticated older contemporary, Xenophon.) [Addendum, October 2015: Having recently had a chance to consult it at some length, I would now add to the list of additional, or alternative, readings, the 500-some pages of “The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy,” edited by A.A. Long (Cambridge University Press, 1999). This is currently available in paperback and Kindle editions (and see also Cambridge Companions Online). It contains some not-too-technical surveys of the evidence, and its problems, as well as studies of individual philosophers, and groups of philosophers, including a discussion of related topics, such as rationalism in early Greek historical and medical literature.]

There are few widely-available compendiums to choose from of the Pre-Socratics that include the Sophists, who are crucial for understanding Plato. Penguin has another that's not bad. This one is slightly better and more complete, hence if you want one and only one this is the way to go. Together they are complementary but in many ways redundant unless you want to compare translations. This book provides a plethora of the available fragments from all the important figures of the age, though it is not entirely exhaustive. Together with fine standard view introductions which ably assist the reader in navigating these complex and diverse materials, one effectively cannot go wrong in purchasing this useful, tidy, and cheap but sturdy little book (in this way its a good example of the Oxford World Classics series, and again, on this front they have the edge on Penguin, who seems to prefer to save a buck in printing costs). To get more of this material one must to go to the expensive dual-language Loeb series' and/or an Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, as well as many other secondaries. For a single, solid starting place, W.K.C. Guthrie's large, pricey, multi-volume history of Ancient Greek Philosophy is quite good and certainly the standard in handy reference works concerning this period - especially volumes I-III (III is mostly available now in the form of two books, simply called "Socrates" and "The Sophists".) His Plato books are fairly good, but mostly as starting points and reference guides to the dialogues, and the Aristotle volume is honestly not worth the money unless you can don't mind springing for a decent general, though not strictly light, intro or are consummately scouring secondary source material).

Concise, well-organised, and informative.

I don't have a PhD and am reading this for fun several years after earning an undergrad degree in philosophy. I can't comment on how this compares to other books dedicated to the topic as I've only read surveys of the period. I can say, however, that it has about the right balance of commentary and introduction for each thinker and their fragments. I enjoyed reading it. It took about the right amount of time I anticipated it might and feel like I have a good understanding of the major evolution of thoughts through the period. I hope this helps.

I’m no scholar or philosophy student. Although I have a passion for philosophy my interests mainly lie in existentialism and phenomenology. With that said, this book is an amazing resource for anyone with an affinity for philosophy or Greek culture. Even modern philosophers are always referring back to the presocratics through the course of their writings, so it’s great to have this book as a reliable reference. Highly recommend.

I like this book; it was really informative on the Presocratics. It helped me know the basic concepts of their philosophy. It was brought on time and I appreciated it

There were no marks on or inside the book, but I'm not 100% convinced it's new.

We only have fragments, due to early Christian purges and book burnings, and a general destruction of art and literature, inspired by religious fanaticism and superstitious fear of "demons". The fanatics WERE the demons. At any rate, this volume brings surviving fragments together. One mourns for all that was lost. A LOT was lost.

Instead of listening to or reading what others say to help make a purchase, simply learn how to improve how to make better decision, because these people DO NOT KNOW YOU nd are NOT YOU. Anyway, what I appreciate about this book is that the fragments & annotations, translated by the author, are listed after the introductory account of each philosophy. For me, this book is clearer guide to understanding the distinction between the author's introductory explanation of each PreSocratic philosoher, without having to remember which doxographer used these fragments/annotations for their own purposes. Consequently, I prefer Robin Waterfield (OUP, 2009) to John Bennet (Zinc Read, 2025)

very beauty

Robin Waterfield has a well earned reputation as an authority on ancient Greece and this discussion of the Presocratic philosophers and the Sophists reinforces that view. Primary sources are limited but Waterfield avoided the temptation to rely on secondary commentaries and has translated many of the actual fragmants and ancient testimona in order to allow the philosophers to speak for themselves. In addition, he makes the point that as there is little consensus on what the ancient philosophers meant readers should think for themselves. The Presocratic philosophers are so called because they lived before Socrates, although the last of them was his contemporary. The initial period of Presocratic philosophy is from 580 - 430 BC. The Presocratics are considered together but do not, as a whole, form a specific school of thought although Parmenides of Elea did have followers. What we know of them is what was recorded by later writers, known as doxographers. We also know that those records reflect the philosophies of the writers themselves. Hence Aristole, using his four causes analysis, suggests Thales believed everything was made out of water, a suggestion from which Waterfield dissents. Similarly Plato in defending Socrates' memory disparages the Sophists. As Plato is the main source of information about the Sophists the need for critical appraisal is imperative. The Presocratics were not scientists in the modern sense of the word. They did not carry out experiments to prove theories and where observation and theories clashed they tended to prefer theory. The Presocratics retained a strong degree of mystical thought. At the time of Homer the primary attribute of religion was anthropomorphism. The gods were the projection of human characteristics on to immortal gods who took little interest in the disordered affairs of men. The Presocratics argued that the real world was ordered and because it was ordered it could be comprehended by the human mind. Although they asked the same questions as their predecessors they assigned the functions previously mooted as belonging to the gods to natural phenomena. Thales, generally accredited as the first philosopher, believed the earth rested on water. Anaximander argued that an unseen element, aspeiron (air), held everything together and had ideas regarded as proto-evolutionary in essence. The first Sophist was Protagoras c.440 BC. He had a good reputation as a teacher although his writings are only known at second hand. He was interested in the correct use of words and appears to have been an agnostic, commenting that "Man is the measure of all things" and opining that "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life." Most Sophists were itinerant teachers and developed a reputation for charging fees to explain virtue and excellence to up and coming politicians. Rhetoric was important in ancient Greece and, in his portrait of Sophists, Plato tried to present them as expounding deception rather than truth. It is in this sense that the word remains in the English language and it is Plato's teacher, Socrates, whose reputation has remained intact. Waterfield deals with fourteen Presocratics and eight Sophists. Each chapter is followed by relevant original text and a bibliography of relevant books and articles for further reading.Waterfield, perhaps inadvertantly, makes the case for a revival of Classical studies at secondary school level. The reduction in the teaching of Latin and Greek in the postwar education syllabus has robbed a generation of knowledge of some of the main influences which have created our current modes of thinking. In addition, they have made it more difficult to understand how previous generations, who were schooled in Classics, thought and acted. Unlike the self improvers of the nineteenth century it is hard to imagine students of today making the effort to further their knowledge through additional study. A very impressive introduction to the subject and worth five stars.

The author insists on viewing the First Philosophers, I mean, the real ones in a VERY anachronistic perspective, not the Sophists «who were nonetheless free thinkers (in this sense they could, and in theory, be considered Philosophers, but the fact is that they considered themselves wise, thus their name; and since the foundation of Philosophy, it was unwise to consider oneself 'wholly' wise, even if you were a God». He really thinks there just exists, practically speaking, one or just a few definitions of Science «Scientia, Epistémê the Latin and Hellenic words respectively»; this is completely wrong OR one or a few definitions of Philosophy, that is, modelled in Plátôn's view, and this as well, is completely wrong. He really does not understand the scrutiny that Plátôn was basically a tottus theologicus philosophus and his philosophy was preserved because it was the model which would then be corrupted to sustain christian theology. For instance, there were several christians priests more than 7 hundred years after Herákleitos book was published, or according to Charles Kahn, possibly given to the Artemis Great temple in Halikarnássos, that were still quoting his little VERY famous book «OUT OF MEMEORY or BY HEART», which according to Marcus Aurelius «and other stoics» was the basis of the Stoic philosophy «which would influence christian dogma as well». Why it was NOT preserved if it was so ubiquitous? O rather, was it destroyed «and there is information hundreds of thousands «at least!» of books being burned by the end of Antiquity, by the order of priests, which many times were not even European». The fact is that it was completely obvious that anyone who was a proponent of a knowledge «Gnosis», or wisdom «Sophia», or the love for knowledge or love for wisdom «mathematiké, philosophía», WAS a PHILOSOPHER. Anyone who denies this is just a mere delusional or alienated academician who will quote more than a hundred sources as IF a ARGUMENTVM AD POPVLVM were really an argument, and as if as many sources one quoted would prove something to be true, which is just an old fallacy regurgitated as a form of validation. I give it two stars because it is reasonably well written and has extensive research, but his analysis is just STERILE.

Fantastic book full of deep knowledge!