4 ms·
I completely agree on the pre-Socratic point. Where's my man Parmenides? But in fairness, many pre-Socratic works are so fragmentary that it's difficult to even
by seliopou 13y ago
I completely agree on the pre-Socratic point. Where's my man Parmenides? But in fairness, many pre-Socratic works are so fragmentary that it's difficult to even consider them works, nevermind philosophical works. Thus they typically fall under the purview of Classics departments. It's unfortunate that they're not taught more broadly and in a context that's more appropriate to their subject, but Classicists are probably the best equipped to handle these authors, given how time has present them to us.
- aquaroris 13y agoI'm not entirely sure about this, but don't most of what we know about pre-Socratic philosophers come from secondary texts reporting on these philosophers' views? If so, then it will be difficult to consider these texts that have informed us about these authors as philosophical texts themselves.
- Bluestrike2 13y agoFor the most part, yes. Some fragments survived, but the majority of what we know about the pre-Socratics has been filtered through later doxographical works. While it certainly isn't optimal, together there's certainly enough of an understanding of the majority of the pre-Socratics to discuss them in a philosophical context without relegating them to Classics departments. Particularly given their relation to later thinkers. If you're interested, this article is an interesting place to start: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doxography-ancient/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doxography-ancient/