History of greek philosophy i tủ tài liệu bách khoa

class \ I 02 ~ o o k Z \5I "-\ Library of Adelbert College of Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Purchased frbrn the Gtft of c,O =% ' GREEK PHILOSOPHY Pli.ON TRR EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE TIHE OF SOURATYS TBANSLATED FROX THE BERUAK OF Dn E ZELLER FI+UEESS0H IS 'CUE C'XIVLRBITY OQ EFRLIS Z LOKDOPJ I S , GXEEN, 1%I AND (0 TEAKSLATOR'S PREFACE, T~f-r< pxeseut, ~ o r kir a tr;~i~slation of the far~rt,l~ and last edition of the first part of Dr Zeller's :Philosophic der Griechen.' That this part., containing t,he General Int~orlnctionko the entire subject aud the history of the enriieet pbiiosophess, should appear aft.er athars dealing with tbc later periods, is in mme measure t o he regrel;ted, becalise Greek Philosophy i r l e s t treatccl as a rhole, and gains immensely hy heing st,~idiedin the order of development ; get those ev-ho fire acquainterl with the previonsly translated portions of Dr Zet ler's work will be thc more ready to ~ ~ e i e o r n s the introductory volume, without which, indeed, many tl-kings in the later ptlilosophy, and in Dr Ze11er7streatment of it, would have remained comparatively obscure There is no need to speak highly of a work so well known The t , r ; ~ n ~ l ihas ~ t ~entleavonrcd r t o make her version as literal ag possible, c.onsidering t.he requirerncnts of the Eugliuh language and its de6ciency in precise equivalents for German philosophical terms-a rlefiuiency giving riae t o many difficulties which she oanl~oi,hope t,o have always si~ccessfullyovercome, #he desires t o express her hearty thanks t,o Mr P!l:v~~ra A ~ ~ Q TFellow T , and Tutor of Balliol Collegt!, Oxford, for his valual~leassista,nce in reading over the proof sheets, especia.lly in regard t o the Greek notea It is, perhaps, necessary to add, respecting the numerous references, that Vol I and XI stand for the volumes of the present translation, and Part I 11 and IT%,for the divisions of the German work T I T ~ ~ XYZARS TP when I pl.~blisherlin its later form the first volume of this work, originally designed on ib different plan, and 21 more limited scale, I explained in the following wordy the principles ~vllich had guided me in its compo~it~ion: ' I n t h e trcatrnebnt of lny subject I have constantIyv kept in vieiv t h e task ~ h i c h1 proposed t o myself in my first approaehcs t o it ; viz to maintain x middle corwse hetween erudite enq l ~ i r yand the sj)cculative stpr~dy of hist,org : neitlle~*, on the one hand, t o collcct- fzcts in a ~nerelyempirir!;~l manner; nor, on t h e othcr, to cnnstnict cc ps.lot>,itheories ; but throngh the traditions themselves, by means of critical sifbing and histnrieal cornbination, to a r r i ~ cst a knowledge of their importalice m d interdependence This t;tsk, however, in regard to the pre-Socrc~tiephilosoplly mas rendered pecrrliarly difficult by the :haractcr of the sources and the divergencies of modem opinions re~pectingthem : i t mas irnpoasib1d sdcqnnicly t o fuliil it without a number of critioal C ~ ~ S C L I J S ~ O ~often S, deecendiag to tdte minutest details l'hat the clearnees AGO, of the historical exposition, however, might not he thereby impaired, have consigned these discussions as ~rruchas possible to the notes, where alou the t,esti.- monies and references respecting the authorities f i r d ,;i.fittirig place But the writings frorn which these :ire taken are many, and some of them dificult to obtain, so lbat i t has often bccn necefisarg tc, give t h e qnotations a t length to make it possible for the reader t o test the aut.henticity of my exposit,ion withunt an unwarrantable expenditure of time Thus the amormt of rtotes, md consequex~tlythe size o f the whole volume, have increased t o II, considerable extent ; but I hope I havc choscn riglltly in atteuding before all things to the scicnt,ific requirements of the reader, and in doubtfhl cases preferring to economist his time rather than the printer's paper.' I have kept to the same poirita of view in the preparation of he following volumes, and of the new editions which h t ~ v esince bccomc necessary The hope that I have therein adopted the proper course has heen fully justified by thc reecption given to my mijrk ; and though the principle (not previously quite nnkno~vntu me) has recently beefi pressed upon my attention, that t h e ancicnt philosophers must be treated philosophically, I havc never yet been able t o convince myself that the rnetllud hit,herto p ~ r s u e dI>yme has been a mistake I still hold, mure strongly than ever? thal the philosophic appr~hensianof systems of philosophy (r~hich,however, must be distinguished from pl~ilosophicwificismj cn- A VTNOR'S PREFACE 1x tirely coincides with tlic historic apprehension of them, can never indeed consider t h a t a groper history has keen written if t h e tillthor has stopped short a t the bare ellurneration of idorated doctrims and btalements without enrluiriny as t o their ceutre of gravity, examining their interconnection, or tracing out their exact moaning; without determining their relation ant1 importance to tltc various ~ y a t e r n scoll~ctively But, on t h e othrr Laud, I rn 11st protest against the misusc of the iroble name of philosophy for the purpose of depriving historic:J phenomena of their distincti~echaracter, of forciug upon the ~ncientphilosophers inferences wlrieh they expressly repudiate, of effacing the contradictions i~ud supplying the laolrna of iheir systems with adjuncts that arc p11.i: inventions The great pl~eaomenaof t h e past are much too great in my eyes for me t o supposc t h a t I could them any service by exalting thern above their historical condition4 and li~nitations In my opinion, such a fitlsc idealisation makes them smaller irlstead of greater At all events, nothing can lherebg he gninecl for historic trnth, before mhioh every predilection for particular persons and schoolsmust g i v e way Whocvcr ~vould~xpounda phllosopbic system must reproduce the tlic:uries held by it,s a11ibor in the cun~lection which they h i d in his mind This we can only learn from the testimdiy of t h e plilobnplers themselves, and from the statements of others corlcerrking their doetrinca; b11t,in comparing these testimonies, in examining t h a i r authenticity and credibility, in completir~gthem by in- ferences and combinations of various kinds, we must ?X careft11 t o remember two things : in the first p l i ~ ~ the e, inductions which cany us beyond direct testimony must in each case he founded on the totality of evidence in our possessiorr ; nncl rvhcu a philosophic theory mrns to us t o require certain furthtlr throries, we must always examine whether other portions of the zutl~or'ssystem, quite as important in his estimation, not stand in the way Secondly, wc mrlst enquire whether are justified in supposing that the philosopher we are considering propounded to himself the questions which we are prop o ~ ~ n d i nt og him, returned t o himself the answers which z r ; ~derive fion! other statrments of his, or himself drcw the inferences which t o u8 appear pecessary To proceed in this spirit of scientific circumspeotion has been a t any rate my own endeavour To this end, as will be seen in the later no less Lhan in the earlier editions of my work, I have also tried t o learn from tliose writers who here ,and there, on points of greater or lesser importance, have differed from me If I am indebtcd t o these writers for many t h i n g that have assisted in the completion and correction o f my ~~~~~~~~~~~I, it, will nevertheless be understood that, in all essential points, I cordd only remain true t o my own view of the pra-Soeratic philosophy, and have defended that ~ i e was persistently arid decidedly ns the interefit of the subject demanded, against objections n-hirh seemed to mc ur~convincing and untenahle I dedicated the second edition of the present work In the moment as s~tcb, no movement, ao change generally speaking, 1.: possible; if I ask where tile flying arrow is at this mornent, t h e answer canvlot bc in the transition from the spme A t o the space B, or ~n other words, in A nnd I3 ; the answer can ouly be in t h e space 12 Consequently, if time is conceived as an in6nit.e series of successive moments, instead of a fixecl quant,ity, we necessarily get, in~tea~d o f the tlansition from one spaee to anot,her, merely a successive Eeing in separate spaces : and motion is j u s t as impossible as if (similarly to the first and second of Zeno's arguments) we sl~ppus" indead of t h e l i n e t o be travcrscd, an in6nite nurrtber of succeusi~-eand sel~artltepoints.' The argument before us is therefore not so sophistical as it appea,rs to be ; at any rate it is nnt more sophistical tha.n the others It, starts: like them, from the perception of a philosophic problem i~ which more recent thinkers have also fol~ndconsiclerable difficulties ; mi1 it stands in the sa,mt!comections with Zeno's general point of view If Enity and MluItiplicity 'he once regarded in the rnannm of fie Eleutics its absolute contradictories posit,iwly excluding one snnthcr, sepawt-ion in time and bpace may easily he looked lipon as a plrirality devoid of nnity; spaee and time as an aggregation of separate points of s p a e and time, and a, transition from one of these points t,o mot.her,-a motion,-becomes I Tliat this is rralIy the force of the argument is also implied by Aristotle, in his short counter obserratim (vide previtius note) ? 'l'he~e is a reference tn the fuodirmentaf tkuught o f this arbu- ~ n c n t in what is quoted 8,s from Zano in Diog ix (as Kern, ITiraoph 26, 74, reminds u ~ :) rb ~ r u o v p ~ ~oohv' Zv fur1 r d r Y H'vshar o h ' Ev ph &r~r : for &:lt it c~ilinut move in the apace ju The fallacy i r ~the fourth demonstration is more apparent This refers t o tZle relation of thc time of movement t o thc space which has t o be traversed According to the la!\> of mution, spaces of equal size mr:st Ile traversed in q u a tlrnc if the speed be equal But two hodles of cqual slzc move past one another twicc as fast if they are both moving at eqnd speed, as jf vvie of them is st~ll,and the other with the same motion passes by it Hence Zeno ventures to concl?rda that in order t o trsveise the rame space,-the space tdken up by each of t h s e two bodies, at the same speed, only half the time IS necessary in the one case that is necessary in the other Consequrnt,ly, he thlnkr, facts here contradict the laws r,f rn0tion.I which it is, is prored b y the r,is~r- hest trxt and the truest ex~b1a11avation xhnt, it is in the sanne space lion of it (p 237 b sq.), and o w n i c ererj- mnn~ent I'ran~l's ~ i c wof the passage, in Arist 239 b, 83: - ~ ; T U ~ T O ? 8' d other rer;peuts sittisfactf~ry,may nrP; 7Yv i~ T@ u ~ u B i y I C ~ V O U ~ E ~ V O V find irs complrtion here, Accord2var.sicrr ~ w lZt y ~ w vsap' frous, T ~ V ing t c ~Simplicius, Zerio'b nlrgunrent Awl T ~ A O V T TUG U T K S ~ U V rair 6' runs thus : Let there ba in rlir? i a S &uov (on t h e memi n g of this ~xprmsionvidc Pmnd b~ h I p $16) GT* T & X ~ L dw , UU+/~C:YFLY i l i ~ ~hao ~ v ,J v a r ~ ~ c i v r4 a v Rwhauiq T ~ ;V ~ ~ M u P $71 uapahD?.iuiibs Iclissn$ (vide in&) On the other I~and,the rcmark about rarefafition and condensation poi~ltst.o the school of Anaximenes From this it is clear that Mclissua occupied himself t o a conuiderable ext.cnt with Lhc: doctrines of the physicists On the wholc, wit.h the exception of the statement t h a t the One is unlimited, we find that our philosopher adhered strictly to t h e doctrine of Parmenides This doctrine, I~owevcr, was not deveIoped further by him, and thougli he imdcrtook t o defend it spinet the phjsiciuts, his arguments are unrnistal;eably inferior t o t h e of Zeno En ac~it,eness H i i t they are not wholly vnIueIess ; his obsctrrntions especially concerning motion and change give evidence of thouglrt,, and bring orit ryd difficulties Besides Parmenides and Zeno, he appears only as a philosopher of t h e second rank, but still, cnnsiilering his da.te, as a meritorious thinker It is obvious that he also agreed with the abovethe E T ~ P ~ CDe ~ ,+lfeli8~0, G C 24 qq.; cn thc; division, fr IS: ~i B I ~ ~ ~ J I ~b I I L