Brian Dunn
Honors Introduction to Philosophy
Natural Philosophers
The Natural Philosophers are also known as the Pre-Socratics because they are the only major
Western philosophers who lived before Socrates who died in 399 BC. Though each of the philosophers
reaches a different conclusion, they all share the same goal—to create general theories of the cosmos,
not through myth but through observation. This shift from the realm of the myth to the realm of logic is
responsible for the birth of Western Philosophy. Most of their philosophies are only known through the
writings of Aristotle who summarized their beliefs (Palmer 10-12).
The most important Pre-Socratic philosophers are Thales, Anaximender, Anaxamines, Heraclitus,
Parmenides, Empedocles and Anaxagoras. Thales posited that, if there is change, there must be
something that causes change, yet does not change. There must be a unity behind all the changes in
order for there to be a unified world. He believed that this unifying, ultimately unchanging substance is
water, and that all things are composed of water. The value of Thales is not his conclusion, but his belief
in an unchanging substance and for his introduction of reductionism, which is a method of explanation
that takes an object that confronts us on the surface as being one kind of thing and shows that the
object can be reduced to a more basic kind of thing at a deeper but less obvious level of analysis (Palmer
13-16). Anaximander questioned Thales’ assumption by asking, “How can water turn into fire?” He also
posited that things of this world can’t come from things of this world. According to Anaximander,
everything in this world comes from the expansion or dissolution of another world. The force that
mediates this is called the Boundless or the Unlimited, which is indefinable (Palmer 16-22). Anaximenes
criticized Anaximander by asking, “How much better is an indefinable something than nothing at all?”
Anaximenes claimed that everything was air. What distinguishes objects from one another is how much
air is packed into one object (Palmer 22-24). Heraclitus, on the other hand, reached his conclusions by
looking at fire and noticing its mix of stability and change. The flame itself remains even though
everything within the flame changes. He also looked at the changing quality of water as well. He
concluded that everything changes, but within this change is a logical force that’s orderly and not
Brian Dunn
Honors Introduction to Philosophy
Natural Philosophers
chaotic (Palmer 27-31). Parmenides theorized that everything that exists has always existed since
nothing can come from nothing. Also, nothing can become anything other than what it is. Basically, he
proposed that there is no such thing as change. Though his senses told him that things change, his
reason convinced him that they can’t. Parmenides chose to believe his reason alone for knowledge,
which makes him a rationalist (Palmer 31-33). Empedocles believed that all nature comes from four
basic elements—earth, air, fire and water. These four elements combine and separate only to combine
all over again making new substances and changing old ones. The two forces, according to Empedocles,
that control everything are love and strife (Palmer 36-38). Finally, Anaxagoras believed that nature
consists of an infinite number of invisible particles, and that everything can be divided into smaller parts.
There are fragments of everything in everything. These tiny particles are called “seeds” (Palmer 38-41).
Considering that the Natural Philosophers are called the Pre-Socratics, it makes sense to
compare and contrast their philosophies with that of Socrates. They do share basic tenets in common.
First of all, from a purely historical standpoint, we only know about the Pre-Socratics and Socrates
through the writings of later philosophers. We know about the Pre-Socratics through Aristotle, and we
know about Socrates through Plato. As such, it is difficult, if not impossible, to completely distinguish
these philosophers from their source writers. Without a doubt, there has to be at least a little bit of
Aristotle within the Natural Philosophers, just as Plato is bound to subsist within his own portrait of
Socrates. Also, the Pre-Socratics and Socrates both refused to blindly accept authority. The myth of the
gods answered all of the questions with which the Pre-Socratics grappled. Socrates notoriously
questioned the Sophists, who claimed to have wisdom, and in doing so exposed their wisdom as nothing
more than hubris. Finally, similar to Socrates, many of the Pre-Socratics were rationalists, relying on
reason for knowledge. This is especially true for Parmenides (Gaarder 63-70).
Brian Dunn
Honors Introduction to Philosophy
Natural Philosophers
On the other hand, there are many fundamental differences between the Pre-Socratics and
Socrates. First of all, from a purely historical standpoint, Socrates exists as more of a fully-formed
character within the writings of Plato than the Pre-Socratics, who are only known for their teachings. It
is easy to see how Socrates’ demeanor and personality influenced his philosophical pursuits. The same
cannot be said for the Pre-Socratics. Also, the Pre-Socratics were interested in answering questions,
while Socrates only employed the Socratic Method, which involves questioning authority in order to
break down claims of wisdom. As a result, Socrates was never able to reach any actual philosophical
conclusions. Due in large part to the breakthroughs of modern science, the Pre-Socratics can be
criticized as arcane in their erroneous explanations of the cosmos. The philosophy of Socrates, on the
other hand, is as relevant today as it was in the fourth century BC (Gaarder 63-70).
I appreciate the influence of the Pre-Socratics much more than I appreciate the conclusions that
they reached. Without the Pre-Socratics drawing a hard line between myth and logic, Socrates may not
have lived the life he lived. Then, Plato and Aristotle probably would not have the foundations necessary
to articulate their philosophies. Plato and Aristotle heavily influenced the Christian philosophers of the
middle ages, which helped articulate reasonable explanations for the truth of the Catholic faith, which I
hold to be true. It is safe to say that Western Philosophy as we know it would not exist without the
methodology of the Pre-Socratics, and considering that I was a philosophy major in college, I have these
men to thank for the enjoyment I received from my years of philosophical studies. Further, I agree with
the Pre-Socratics that there is more to this world than what is observable with the naked eye. This has
been proven true by the discovery of the atom. It is easy to dismiss the Natural Philosophers due to the
false conclusions they reached, but it is impossible to deny their influence on the methodology that
would lead to the flourishing of Western Philosophy as well as their foreknowledge of many of the
truths of atomic science.
Brian Dunn
Honors Introduction to Philosophy
Natural Philosophers
Works Cited
Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie’s World: A Novel About the History of Philosophy. Farrar, Strauss, Giroux: New
York, 2007.
Palmer, Donald. Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Philosophy.
McGraw Hill: Boston, 2006.