Aristotle and the Pre-Socratics

Among researchers of antiquity philosophy the interest in the thinkers who historically preceded Socrates is undiminished - hence the name Pre-Socratics - and their fragments are still the source of intense philological and philosophical analyses. The challenge is not only the attempts of the first philosophers to shape philosophical concepts, using the terms of the (then) colloquial language, but also the fact that none of the texts of the pre-Socratics have been preserved to us in their original form, but only through longer or shorter references in the texts of the philosophers who came after them. Hence the collection of pre-Socratic texts compiled by Hermann Alexander Diels at the beginning of the last century (since then it has been redacted and supplemented several times) under the title Pre-Socratic Fragments, a comprehensive attempt to reconstruct the teachings of the early thinkers based on quotations from their lost writings. One of the most important sources for the periodization and thematic classification of the teachings of the pre-Socratic philosophers are Aristotle's writings, primarily Metaphysics i Physics. Many interpretations of early Greek philosophy, up to the present day, bear the Aristotelian stamp, which creates a new plot: can we trust Aristotle as a historian of philosophy, and to what extent?

...

In the foreground of the two-volume knjige Zeljko Kaluđerović History of Hellenic philosophy, the teachings of the pre-Socratics were viewed precisely on the basis of Aristotle's interpretation based on etiology (learning about the first causes - principles) of this ancient thinker. In the first volume, Kaluđerović explores some of the key points of Aristotle's exposition on early Greek thinkers, while in the second volume, the foundations for this interpretation, i.e. Aristotle's "first philosophy" itself, are laid out. To that extent, this two-volume book is an interpretation of Aristotle's interpretation of the pre-Socratics, but also an interpretation of different interpretations of Aristotle's philosophy. From the hermeneutic challenge - the interpretation of the interpretation - arises the possibility of a double approach to Kaluđerović's text, i.e. the first volume can be read first, but the reverse approach, from the second part to the first, is equally justified. Therefore, Kaluđerović's book is closer to a problematic rather than a chronological presentation, which is otherwise a rare approach (the well-known exception is certainly Windeband's History of philosophy).

THE RELIABILITY OF ARISTOTLE'S PRESENTATION

In the second volume, the author points to different answers to the question of how reliable Aristotle's understanding of the pre-Socratics is. According to one school of interpretation, whose best representatives are John Barnett and Harold Cherniss, Aristotle is unreliable as a historian of philosophy, either because he leaves the original teachings of the pre-Socratics in the background emphasizing his own philosophical positions, or because a coherent and non-contradictory scheme of the philosophers of early ancient thinkers cannot be established based on the preserved texts of the philosophers from Stagira. In contrast, Guthrie and Joachim Ritter believe that Aristotle establishes a clear boundary between the myth-making texts and the later philosophical works of the pre-Socratics, and based on this, shows the affinity between Italic and Ionian philosophies about being, that is, first causes and principles. Kaluđerović does not decide for any side in this dispute, but shows that Aristotle's philosophical approach must not be understood as a mere historiographic exposition, but rather a problematic interpretation: Aristotle is not a doxographer, that is, he does not convey mere opinions, but seeks a guiding thread in the teachings he interprets. In this sense, Kaluđerović presents Aristotle's doubts when interpreting early Greek thinkers: u Metaphysics Aristotle's approach is different than, say, in Physicists, in the file On emergence and disappearance, or in the text About the soul. Kaluđerović also points out the problem of understanding Aristotle's texts themselves, especially focusing on the different possibilities of translating certain parts. Metaphysical from the Greek source - for example, a text in which Aristotle talks about the relationship between Empedocles and Anaxagoras, the meaning of which can be that Anaxagoras is older than Empedocles, and that his philosophy is younger, but also that Anasagora's philosophy is "later", that is, inferior to Empedocles's, or when it comes to understanding the concept dynamis.

After problematizing the possible reasons why Aristotle's sequence cause different in Physicists i Metaphysics - in the second volume, Kaluđerović meticulously explains each of the four aition (cause). Apart from the original interpretation of Aristotle's aetiology, this part of the book enables us to more easily follow the presentation in the first volume, i.e. Aristotle's classification of the pre-Socratics according to which of the causes (material, efficient, formal or final) was considered in their works. In the second volume, Kaluđerović also analyzes three key concepts of Aristotle's philosophy, which he translates as possibility (dynamis), effectiveness (energy) and purposefulness (entelechy). Furthermore, exploring the meaning of Aristotle's teaching on divine being (immovable mover), Kaluđerović presents the understanding of the imperishability of space and time from the twelfth book Metaphysical, which not only paves the way to Stagiranin's conception of the highest eternal being, but also explains the basic approach of the pre-Socratics in Metaphysics i Physicists.

INTERPRETATION OF CAUSE

In the first volume Histories of Hellenic philosophy Kaluđerović places precisely the Eleian teaching on being at the center of pre-Socratic thought. First, from the point of view of Aristotle's aetiology, he explains the "pre-Deleian viewpoints" - the teachings of the Milesians, Pythagoreans and Heraclitus. At the beginning of this chapter, he pays special attention to Thales as a protean figure of philosophy, that is, he shows - only through Aristotle's writings - why Thales' teaching is a step forward in relation to the poetic-mythical images of the world that precede him. How to understand the water of Thales as cause, respectively are you i trick, the beginning and matter of all that exists? If water, as shown by Aristotle, is an eternal ingredient, then it did not begin in time, but is always and everywhere present. In this sense, the world can be understood as a whole based on a cause that is not taken from earlier mythical representations, so Thales himself, as Kaluđerović wittily notes, is both the temporal and ontological prius of philosophical thought.

Certainly the most interesting part of the first volume of Kaluđerović's book is a substantial segment entitled "Objections of the Eleanors". After a succinct presentation of Xenophanes' teaching, despite the fact that in many interpretations this pre-Socratic is seen more as a traveling rhapsodist and less as a thinker, Kaluđerović presents Parmenides' doctrine of being. Dwelling first on Aristotle's determination that Parmenides one (hen) understood "as a concept", while Melis one understood "as a substance" - Kaluđerović questions whether it follows that Parmenides has already indicated the outlines of a formal cause. The formal cause represents an essential determination, which is not changeable and perishable, like matter (substance). On the other hand, Kaluđerović delves into a much bigger doubt when it comes to Aristotle's presentation of Parmenides. Despite, it seems, a clear division of Parmenides Poem na the path of truth, which talks about the irrefutability of the monistic thesis (it will be one, from which it follows that it has neither become perishable, divisible, nor movable, i.e. changeable), and way of opinion (in which several material elements are discussed), Aristotle in several places in Metaphysics connects these two paths, creating a picture of a unified teaching, and not (only) a division into true and false speech about being. The problem of the ratio of two paths in Parmenides Poems it is all the more intriguing that about 70 percent of the text devoted to the introductory part has reached us (that is, so much has been preserved) and on the path of truth (or the path of being), while way of opinion preserved in reverse proportion (almost one third of the original text). Based on the first book of Aristotle Metaphysical, those two paths are intertwined in some sense, and the problem of co-belonging parts Poem in Aristotle's interpretation, Kaluđerović considers parallel to the research of Parmenides' fragments. Aristotle's interpretation of Parmenides' teaching, which is also supported by some doxographic sources, thus opens up many stimulating questions: for example, whether the light or eros that Parmenides talks about in the path of opinion can be interpreted as an efficient cause (cause of movement), i.e. in what relation are darkness and earth to non-being. After the interpretation of Aristotle's understanding of Zeno and Melissa, in the final part of the second volume, Kaluđerović discusses the "post-Steleian approaches", Epicurus, Anaxagoras and the atomists, i.e. Aristotle's interpretation of problematic situations from the texts of late pre-Socratic thinkers.

BEGINNING OF MOVEMENT AND THE MOTIVATOR

...

In the central part of the second volume, Kaluđerović also shows the connection between Aristotle's research on the pre-Socratics and his formation of philosophical viewpoints. The discussion about causes and beginnings means to investigate what represents the source of changes, that is, the path from possibility to perfection. We find everything that exists in change and movement, but on the other hand, every movement has its own cause, its initiator. In this chain of causation, we reach the first mover and thus the connection between eternal and changeable beings, which was missing in Plato's theory of ideas. In other words, the philosophical consideration of the relationship between God and the world was conceived precisely in the final parts of the twelfth book Metaphysical. Analyzing in detail Aristotle's theses about the immutable being (or beings) which is not possible, but it is necessarily (that is, where the activity and the purpose coincide), Kaluđerović pays special attention to immovable causality. If the divine being is an immaterial, perfect, self-thinking thought, then it cannot be the active mover of other beings. Aristotle's answer that it moves as "that desired", or "loved", although it indicates a clear difference between God and any other being, still bridges the gap between perfect and imperfect (possible) being. Željko Kaluđerović thematizes this connection by considering the relationship first philosophies i theology, in terms, therefore, that Aristotle uses synonymously at first sight.

The two-volume book by Željko Kaluđerović ends with a chapter on Aristotle's understanding of virtue and justice, i.e. an appendix on hints of will, similarities and differences between man and other living beings. Thus, in a certain way, considerations about the beginnings of movement that are "in the creator" and not "in the creation", complete its aitiology. Both volumes of Kaluđerović's work are equipped with an index of names, Greek concepts, terms and phrases, as well as other (usual) scientific apparatus. Written with care and without too much technical terminology, which makes the text passable, this book clarifies even the most difficult passages from Aristotle's writings and pre-Socratic texts. History of Hellenic philosophy it is equally stimulating both for already trained researchers of the ancient philosophical heritage and for those who are just approaching this topic.