The Presocratic Philosophers (Arguments of the Philosophers) [Paperback]

The Kirk, Raven, and Schofield Presocratic Philosophers tends to be the standard text, but I have to say that Barnes' work is my pick. One can tell from his personal style that he lives with these texts, in much the same way as Barnes' work on Aristotle reveals his affection for the great Macedonian. My "analytic" desciption in the title of this review is a technical term; Barnes' appointment in philosophy at Oxford indicates to the discerning reader Barnes' philosophical committment towards Anglo-American analytic philosophy, and the asides sprinkled liberally throughout the text show Barnes editorializing on these thinkers as only an analytic philosopher with a dry, British wit can. As a matter of fact, in his worse moments he comes across as only slightly less opinionated and certain of his conclusions than does Lord Russell in the latter's often caustic but always enjoyable History of Western Philosophy. Still, it is Barnes' interpretation of these thinkers, more than his style, that ultimately recommends this work. The condition of the Presocratic texts and their profound age allows for nearly any sort of reading (witness Heidegger's important work on Anaximander, Heraclitus, and Parmenides in particular), and Barnes tries to situate his subjects within a narrative grouped more around ideas than chronology. The work is in three sections, entitled "Eden" (the earliest of the Presocratics and their ideas about the nature of matte, etc.), "The Serpent" (Parmenides and Zeno), and "Paradise Regained" (Ionian thought, Empedocles, Atomists, et. al.), and there is an "Epilogue" which ties it all together nicely. Since the thing is arranged in terms of ideas rather than names, it can be difficult if one simply wants, say, the chapter that explains Democritus--there is none. Rather, Democritus (for example) shows up throughout the work, whenever his thought becomes relevent to the flow of the narrative. That said, Barnes does go into great detail when discussing the various thinkers, and you come away from the book having thoroughly examined each of the philosophers in a contextual rather than chronological way. The appendices and indexes are exhaustive, and allow for quick location of either a thinker or a specific topic. An excellent book on the Presocratics.

I cannot claim to have swallowed this entire tome, but I can at least recommend it for sipping. Barnes covers Thales down to Diogenes in a less scholarly and more personal style than Kirk & Raven use in their book of the same name. Barnes is less concerned with philological and historical interpretations than with "whether the Presocratics spoke truly, (and) whether their sayings rested on sound arguments." He also is an entertaining writer. For instance, in pooh-poohing the currently fashionable tendency to stress the irrational side of Presocratic thinking, Barnes writes: "...that even the Greeks had their moments of unreason is not to be denied.... (Nonetheless) the Greeks stand to the irrational as the French to bad cuisine."

To begin with, disclosure: I've read large parts of this book, but not all. So, in fairness to Barnes, there may be gems in here that I missed.

All in all, Barnes offers us a wealth of texts and a great deal of commentary. Writing a fairly comprehensive history and analysis of Presocratic philosophy is a big job, and Barnes doesn't shrink from the task.

First off, as a writer, Barnes is extremely skillful and readable. His prose dances with acerbic wit and the confidence of a man who knows how to turn a phrase. This is no dull-as-dishwater academic writing, and there is mercifully little jargon for the sake of jargon.

In terms of translation and interpretation, I find Barnes to be inconsistent. He is certainly a competent translator of Greek--and he occasionally produces a beautiful rendering where others stumble. However, his way of interpreting these translations leads to problems, as he seems unaware of any ambiguity in the material he has translated. To give just one example, he renders Heraclitus B50 as, "Listening not to me but to my account it is wise to agree that everything is one." This is taken by Barnes to be an explicit assertion of monism, which, for Barnes, is material monism: "In some fashion the diversity of appearances is underpinned or colligated by some single thing or stuff (Barnes, 60)." Well...*maybe* this is the meaning of B50. Unfortunately, this isn't as clear or unproblematic as Barnes seems to think--this might be a material monism, or it might not. But Barnes assumes it is without further ado, and so when he begins his interpretation of Heraclitean fire, it is immediately deemed "the prime stuff of the world" in line with his reading of B50--a reading which was never fully justified to begin with. But if the oneness in B50 is NOT indicative of material monism, but some other thing, then perhaps the fire in the other fragments is not a "stuff" at all, but something else--I've been told that Klaus Held's phenomenological reading of Heraclitus suggests that the elements be understood as "domains of appearing," to offer just one alternative. Thus I find Barnes' interpretive methodology and practice highly questionable.

His overall philosophical approach and outlook on the ancients will appeal to some, but it left me cold.

First, Barnes loosely follows what might be called an "evolutionary" model of ancient philosophy, with one philosopher formulating his philosophy in response to a predecessor's challenge. Frankly, I can't buy it. I'm not alone--no less a scholar than M.L. West savages this approach for his own reasons (in an appropriately polite, witty, British way) in Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. But for me, anyhow, this view of ancient philosophy assumes WAY too much about what those early wise men were up to. Barnes seems to think of the ancient Mediterranean as some kind of Oxbridge debating society or modern academic conference. It wasn't.

Second, Barnes seems to have swallowed Aristotle's reading of the Presocratics hook, line, and sinker. Of course, he may pay lip service to the importance of a properly critical reading of ancient doxographies, and that's fine, but I'm talking about the big picture. Aristotle's basic attitude towards the Presocratics was to say: Thanks for playing; now I'll do to perfection what you merely tried to do in a bumbling, amateurish way. And Barnes seems to buy into this. He talks about the Presocratics searching out the waters over which "the stately galleon" of Aristotle's own philosophy would one day sail. He tells us that the Presocratics drank "the heady potation" from "the springs of reason" and explains that we should excuse the "trembling delirium in their brains" and "their precocious intoxication" because "their tipsy gait taught us to walk more steadily." And so here we are. Gone is any sense that the Presocratics might have understood more than Aristotle. Gone is any inkling that Aristotle himself, blinded by his own sense of superiority, might not have had such a perfect understanding of his philosophical forebears after all. Gone, in short, is any trace of caution and humility. Barnes sums up his own point of view quite well: "Few Presocratic opinions are true; fewer still are well grounded." (Barnes, 3-5)

This, as I see it, is what lies at the bottom of Barnes' truly objectionable approach. For this book is, most fundamentally, seven hundred pages of an above-average scholar putting the words of the Presocratics (which he, like Aristotle, may or may not have understood) into modern logical notation--so that he can refute them. This is where I come to the end, both of my patience with Barnes and of my review. If this sort of thing is your cup of tea and doesn't trouble you...then buy the book, you'll enjoy it. If you, like me, have serious problems with this mentality and approach--look elsewhere. There are more sensitive and perceptive scholars out there than Barnes: Dilcher (Studies in Heraclitus (Spudasmata: Studien Zur Klassichen Philologie Und Ihren Grenzgebieten)), Guthrie (History of Greek Philosophy (Volume 1)), Kahn (The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary), Kingsley (Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition, Reality), and West (Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (Oxford Scholarly Classics)) come to mind. You'll have to buy more than a single book, but if you're interested in the Presocratics as lovers of wisdom and not as target practice for a middling analytic philosopher, it'll be worth it.