April 03, 2015 <Back to Index>
PAGE SPONSOR |
Thales of Miletus (Greek: Θαλῆς; c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher from Miletus in Asia Minor, and one of the Seven Sages of Greece. Many, most notably Aristotle, regard him as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition. According to Bertrand Russell, "Western philosophy begins with Thales." Thales attempted to explain natural phenomena without reference to mythology and was tremendously influential in this respect. Almost all of the other pre-Socratic philosophers follow him in attempting to provide an explanation of ultimate substance, change, and the existence of the world — without reference to mythology. Those philosophers were also influential, and eventually Thales' rejection of mythological explanations became an essential idea for the scientific revolution. He was also the first to define general principles and set forth hypotheses, and as a result has been dubbed the "Father of Science", though it is argued that Democritus is actually more deserving of this title. In mathematics, Thales used geometry to
solve problems such as calculating the height of pyramids and the
distance of ships from the shore. He is credited with the first use of
deductive reasoning applied to geometry, by deriving four corollaries to Thales' Theorem.
As a result, he has been hailed as the first true mathematician and is
the first known individual to whom a mathematical discovery has been
attributed. Also, Thales was the first person known to have studied
electricity. Diogenes Laertius states that ("according to Herodotus and Douris and Democritus") Thales' parents were Examyes and Cleobuline, both Phoenician nobles. Giving another opinion, he ultimately connects Thales' family line back to Phoenician prince Cadmus. Diogenes also reports two other stories, one that he married and had a son, Cybisthus or Cybisthon, or adopted his nephew of the same name. The second is that he never married, telling his mother as a young man that it was too early to marry, and as an older man that it was too late. A much earlier source - Plutarch - tells the following story: Solon who visited Thales asked him the reason which kept him single. Thales answered that he did not like the idea of having to worry about children. Nevertheless, several years later Thales, anxious for family, adopted his nephew Cybisthus. Thales
involved himself in many activities, taking the role of an innovator.
Some say that he left no writings, others that he wrote "On the
Solstice" and "On the Equinox". Neither has survived. Diogenes
Laërtius quotes letters of Thales to Pherecydes and Solon, offering to review the book of the former on religion, and offering to keep company with the latter on his sojourn from Athens. Thales identifies the Milesians as Athenians. Thales’ political life had mainly to do with the involvement of the Ionians in the defense of Anatolia against the growing power of the Persians, who were then new to the region. A king had come to power in neighboring Lydia, Croesus,
who was somewhat too aggressive for the size of his army. He had
conquered most of the states of coastal Anatolia, including the cities
of the Ionians. The story is told in Herodotus. The Lydians were at war with the Medes, a remnant of the first wave of Persians in the region, over the issue of refuge the Lydians had given to some Scythian soldiers
of fortune inimical to the Medes. The war endured for five years, but
in the sixth an eclipse of the Sun (mentioned above) spontaneously
halted a battle in progress (the Battle of Halys). It seems that Thales had predicted this solar eclipse. The Seven Sages were most likely already in existence, as Croesus was also heavily influenced by Solon of Athens,
another sage. Whether Thales was present at the battle is not known,
nor are the exact terms of the prediction, but based on it the Lydians
and Medes made peace immediately, swearing a blood oath. The Medes were dependencies of the Persians under Cyrus. Croesus now sided with the Medes against the Persians and marched in the direction of Iran (with far fewer men than he needed). He was stopped by the river Halys, then unbridged. This time he had Thales with him, perhaps by invitation. Whatever his status, the king gave the problem to him, and he got the army across by digging a diversion upstream so as to reduce the flow, making it possible to ford the river. The channels ran around both sides of the camp. The two armies engaged at Pteria in Cappadocia. As the battle was indecisive but paralyzing to both sides, Croesus marched home, dismissed his mercenaries and sent emissaries to his dependents and allies to ask them to dispatch fresh troops to Sardis. The issue became more pressing when the Persian army showed up at Sardis. Diogenes Laertius tells us that Thales gained fame as a counsellor when he advised the Milesians not to engage in a symmachia, a “fighting together”, with the Lydians. This has sometimes been interpreted as an alliance, but a ruler does not ally with his subjects. Croesus was defeated before the city of Sardis by Cyrus, who subsequently spared Miletus because it had taken no action. Cyrus was so impressed by Croesus’ wisdom and his connection with the sages that he spared him and took his advice on various matters. The
Ionians were now free. Herodotus says that Thales advised them to form
an Ionian state; that is, a bouleuterion (“deliberative body”) to be
located at Teos in the center of Ionia.
The Ionian cities should be demoi, or “districts”. Miletus, however,
received favorable terms from Cyrus. The others remained in an Ionian
League of 12 cities (excluding Miletus now), and were subjugated by the
Persians. Diogenes Laertius tells us that the Seven Sages were created in the archonship of Damasius at Athens about 582 BC and that Thales was the first sage. The same story, however, asserts that Thales emigrated to Miletus. There is also a report that he did not become a student of nature until after his political career. Much as we would like to have a date on the seven sages, we must reject these stories and the tempting date if we are to believe that Thales was a native of Miletus, predicted the eclipse, and was with Croesus in the campaign against Cyrus. Thales had instruction from Egyptian priests, we are told. It was fairly certain that he came from a wealthy and established family, and the wealthy customarily educated their children. Moreover, the ordinary citizen, unless he was a seafaring man or a merchant, could not afford the grand tour in Egypt, and in any case did not consort with noble lawmakers such as Solon. He did participate in some games, most likely Panhellenic, at which he won a bowl twice. He dedicated it to Apollo at Delphi. As he was not known to have been athletic, his event was probably declamation, and it may have been victory in some specific phase of this event that led to his being designated sage. The Greeks often invoked idiosyncratic explanations of natural phenomena by reference to the will of anthropomorphic gods and heroes. Thales, however, aimed to explain natural phenomena via a rational explanation that referenced natural processes themselves. For example, Thales attempted to explain earthquakes by hypothesizing that the Earth floats on water, and that earthquakes occur when the Earth is rocked by waves, rather than assuming that earthquakes were the result of supernatural processes. Thales was a Hylozoist (those who think matter is alive). It is unclear whether the interpretation that he treated matter as being alive might have been mistaken for his thinking the properties of nature arise directly from material processes, more consistent with modern ideas of how properties arise as emergent characteristics of complex systems involved in the processes of evolution and developmental change. Thales, according to Aristotle, asked what was the nature (Greek Arche) of the object so that it would behave in its characteristic way. Physis (φύσις) comes from phyein (φύειν), "to grow", related to our word "be". (G)natura is the way a thing is "born", again with the stamp of what it is in itself. Aristotle characterizes most of the philosophers "at first" (πρῶτον) as thinking that the "principles in the form of matter were the only principles of all things", where "principle" is arche, "matter" is hyle ("wood" or "matter", "material") and "form" is eidos. Arche is translated as "principle", but the two words do not have precisely the same meaning. A principle of something is merely prior (related to pro-) to it either chronologically or logically. An arche (from αρχειν,
"to rule") dominates an object in some way. If the arche is taken to be
an origin, then specific causality is implied; that is, B is supposed
to be characteristically B just because it comes from A, which dominates
it. The
archai that Aristotle had in mind in his well known passage on the
first Greek scientists are not necessarily chronologically prior to
their objects, but are constituents of it. For example, in pluralism
objects are composed of earth, air, fire and water, but those elements
do not disappear with the production of the object. They remain as
archai within it, as do the atoms of the atomists. What
Aristotle is really saying is that the first philosophers were trying
to define the substance(s) of which all material objects are composed.
As a matter of fact, that is exactly what modern scientists are
attempting to accomplish in nuclear physics, which is a second reason
why Thales is described as the first western scientist. Thales' most famous belief was his cosmological thesis, which held that the world started from water. Aristotle considered this belief roughly equivalent to the later ideas of Anaximenes, who held that everything in the world was composed of air. The best explanation of Thales' view is the following passage from Aristotle's Metaphysics. The passage contains words from the theory of matter and form that were adopted by science with quite different meanings.
And again:
Aristotle's depiction of the problem of change and the definition of substance is clear. If an object changes, is it the same or different? In either case how can there be a change from one to the other? The answer is that the substance "is saved", but acquires or loses different qualities (πάθη, the things you "experience"). How far does Aristotle reflect Thales? He was probably not far off, and Thales was probably an incipient matter - and - formist. The essentially non-philosophic Diogenes Laertius states that Thales taught as follows:
Heraclitus Homericus states
that Thales drew his conclusion from seeing moist substance turn into
air, slime and earth. It seems likely that Thales viewed the Earth as
solidifying from the water on which it floated and which surrounded
Ocean. Thales applied his method to objects that changed to become other objects, such as water into earth (he thought). But what about the changing itself? Thales did address the topic, approaching it through lodestone and amber, which, when electrified by rubbing together, also attracts. A concern for magnetism and electrification never left science, being a major part of it today. Even the subatomic particle of electric current is derived from the Greek word ήλεκτρον (ēlektron), which means "amber". How was the power to move other things without the movers changing to be explained? Thales saw a commonality with the powers of living things to act. The lodestone and the amber must be alive, and if that were so, there could be no difference between the living and the dead. When asked why he didn’t die if there was no difference, he replied “because there is no difference.” Aristotle defined the soul as the principle of life, that which imbues the matter and makes it live, giving it the animation, or power to act. The idea did not originate with him, as the Greeks in general believed in the distinction between mind and matter, which was ultimately to lead to a distinction not only between body and soul but also between matter and energy. If things were alive, they must have souls. This belief was no innovation, as the ordinary ancient populations of the Mediterranean did believe that natural actions were caused by divinities. Accordingly, the sources say that Thales believed that "all things were full of gods.". In their zeal to make him the first in everything some said he was the first to hold the belief, which must have been widely known to be false. However, Thales was looking for something more general, a universal substance of mind. That also was in the polytheism of the times. Zeus was the very personification of supreme mind, dominating all the subordinate manifestations. From Thales on, however, philosophers had a tendency to depersonify or objectify mind, as though it were the substance of animation per se and not actually a god like the other gods. The end result was a total removal of mind from substance, opening the door to a non - divine principle of action. This tradition persisted until Einstein, whose cosmology is quite a different one and does not distinguish between matter and energy. Classical thought, however, had proceeded only a little way along that path. Instead of referring to the person, Zeus, they talked about the great mind:
The universal mind appears as a Roman belief in Virgil as well:
Whether the ability to use the seked, which preceded Thales by about 1000 years, means that he was the first to define trigonometry is a matter of opinion. More practically Thales used the same method to measure the distances of ships at sea, said Eudemus as reported by Proclus (“in Euclidem”). According to Kirk & Raven, all you need for this feat is three straight sticks pinned at one end and knowledge of your altitude. One stick goes vertically into the ground. A second is made level. With the third you sight the ship and calculate the seked from the height of the stick and its distance from the point of insertion to the line of sight. The seked is a measure of the angle. Knowledge of two angles (the seked and a right angle) and an enclosed leg (the altitude) allows you to determine by similar triangles the second leg, which is the distance. Thales probably had his own equipment rigged and recorded his own sekeds, but that is only a guess. There are two theorems called
Theorem of Thales, one having to do with a triangle inscribed in a
circle and having the circle's diameter as one leg, the other theorem
being also called the intercept theorem. In addition, Eudemus attributed to him the discovery that a circle is bisected by
its diameter, that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal
and that vertical angles are equal. It would be hard to imagine
civilization without these theorems. It
is possible, of course, to question whether Thales really did discover
these principles. On the other hand, it is not possible to answer such
doubts definitively. The sources are all that we have, even though they
sometimes contradict each other. In
the long sojourn of philosophy there has existed hardly a philosopher
or historian of philosophy who did not mention Thales and try to
characterize him in some way. He is generally recognized as having
brought something new to human thought. Mathematics, astronomy and
medicine already existed. Thales added something to these different
collections of knowledge to produce a universality, which, as far as
writing tells us, was not in tradition before, but resulted in a new
field. Ever
since, interested persons have been asking what that new something is.
Answers fall into (at least) two categories, the theory and the method.
Once an answer has been arrived at, the next logical step is to ask how
Thales compares to other philosophers, which leads to his classification
(rightly or wrongly). The most natural epithets of Thales are "materialist" and "naturalist", which are based on ousia and physis. The Catholic Encyclopedia goes so far as to call him a physiologist, a person who studied physis, despite the fact that we already have physiologists. On the other hand, he would have qualified as an early physicist, as did Aristotle. They studied corpora, "bodies", the medieval descendants of substances. Most agree that Thales' stamp on thought is the unity of substance, hence Bertrand Russell:
Russell was only reflecting an established tradition; for example: Nietzsche, in his Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, wrote:
This sort of materialism, however, should not be confused with deterministic materialism. Thales was only trying to explain the unity observed in the free play of the qualities. The arrival of uncertainty in the modern world made possible a return to Thales; for example, John Elof Boodin writes ("God and Creation"):
Boodin defines an "emergent" materialism, in which the objects of sense emerge uncertainly from the substrate. Thales is the innovator of this sort of materialism.
In the West, Thales represents a new kind of inquiring community as well. Edmund Husserl attempts
to capture the new movement as follows. Philosophical man is a "new
cultural configuration" based in stepping back from "pregiven tradition"
and taking up a rational "inquiry into what is true in itself;" that
is, an ideal of truth. It begins with isolated individuals such as
Thales, but they are supported and cooperated with as time goes on.
Finally the ideal transforms the norms of society, leaping across
national borders. The term "Pre-Socratic" derives ultimately from the philosopher Aristotle, who distinguished the early philosophers as concerning themselves with substance. Diogenes Laertius on the other hand took a strictly geographic and ethnic approach. Philosophers were either Ionian or Italian. He used "Ionian" in a broader sense, including also the Athenian academics, who were not Pre-Socratics. From a philosophic point of view, any grouping at all would have been just as effective. There is no basis for an Ionian or Italian unity. Some scholars, however, concede to Diogenes' scheme as far as referring to an "Ionian" school. There was no such school in any sense. The
most popular approach refers to a Milesian school, which is more
justifiable socially and philosophically. They sought for the substance
of phenomena and may have studied with each other. Some ancient writers
qualify them as Milesioi, "of Miletus." Thales had a profound influence on other Greek thinkers and therefore on Western history. Some believe Anaximander was a pupil of Thales. Early sources report that one of Anaximander's more famous pupils, Pythagoras, visited Thales as a young man, and that Thales advised him to travel to Egypt to further his philosophical and mathematical studies. Many philosophers followed Thales' lead in searching for explanations in nature rather than in the supernatural; others returned to supernatural explanations, but couched them in the language of philosophy rather than of myth or of religion. Looking
specifically at Thales' influence during the pre-Socratic era, it is
clear that he stood out as one of the first thinkers who thought more in
the way of logos than mythos. The difference between these two more profound ways of seeing the world is that mythos is concentrated around the stories of holy origin, while logos is
concentrated around the argumentation. When the mythical man wants to
explain the world the way he sees it, he explains it based on gods and
powers. Mythical thought does not differentiate between things and
persons and furthermore it does not differentiate between nature and culture. The way a logos thinker would present a world view is radically different from the way of the mythical thinker. In its concrete form, logos is
a way of thinking not only about individualism, but also the abstract.
Furthermore, it focuses on sensible and continuous argumentation. This
lays the foundation of philosophy and its way of explaining the world in terms of abstract argumentation, and not in the way of gods and mythical stories. Our sources on the Milesian philosophers (Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes) were either roughly contemporaneous (such as Herodotus) or lived within a few hundred years of his passing. Moreover, they were writing from a tradition that was well known. Most modern dissension comes from trying to interpret what we know, in particular, distinguishing legend from fact. The main secondary source concerning the details of Thales' life and career is Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of Eminent Philosophers". This is primarily a biographical work, as the name indicates. Compared to Aristotle, Diogenes is not much of a philosopher. He is the one who, in the Prologue to that work, is responsible for the division of the early philosophers into "Ionian" and "Italian", but he places the Academics in the Ionian school and otherwise evidences considerable disarray and contradiction, especially in the long section on forerunners of the "Ionian School". Diogenes quotes two letters attributed to Thales, but Diogenes wrote some eight centuries after Thales' death and that his sources often contained "unreliable or even fabricated information", hence the concern for separating fact from legend in accounts of Thales. Most philosophic analyses of the philosophy of Thales come from Aristotle, a professional philosopher, tutor of Alexander the Great, who wrote 200 years after Thales death. Aristotle, judging from his surviving books, does not seem to have access to any works by Thales, although he probably had access to works of other authors about Thales, such as Herodotus, Hecataeus, Plato etc., as well as others whose work is now extinct. It was Aristotle's express goal to present Thales work not because it was significant in itself, but as a prelude to his own work in natural philosophy. Geoffrey Kirk and John Raven, English compilers of the fragments of the Pre-Socratics, assert that Aristotle's "judgments are often distorted by his view of earlier philosophy as a stumbling progress toward the truth that Aristotle himself revealed in his physical doctrines." There was also an extensive oral tradition. Both the oral and the written were commonly read or known by all educated men in the region. Aristotle's philosophy had a distinct stamp: it professed the theory of matter and form, which modern scholastics have dubbed hylomorphism. Though once very widespread, it was not generally adopted by rationalist and modern science, as it mainly is useful in metaphysical analyses,
but does not lend itself to the detail that is of interest to modern
science. It is not clear that the theory of matter and form existed as
early as Thales, and if it did, whether Thales espoused it. |