The first period in Greek philosophy.

Citation

Bascom, J. (1893). The first period in Greek philosophy. In J. Bascom, An historical interpretation of philosophy (pp. 13-28). New York, NY, US: G P Putnam's Sons.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12952-001

Abstract

Discusses the first period in Greek philosophy. The Greek was well fitted for speculative inquiry, not only by original vivacity of mind, not only by many distinct centres of civic life, which both by their separation and by their union promoted the most lively individuality of thought, but also by the absence of any overbearing ecclesiasticism. The first period in Grecian philosophy offers, in an obscure way, the same discrepancy of opinion concerning the relation of physical terms and spiritual ones to each other which has reappeared in all periods as the one unsettled controversy. The different schools of philosophy were widely separated from each other by their naturalism or their spiritualism. The disciples of Pythagoras and the Eleatics dealt wholly with mental terms. Ideas stood with them for the productive forces of the world. The notion was far more than the material in which it wrought. They failed, however, to discriminate between an idea and the intellectual personality to which it belongs. The Ionic philosophers and the Atomists shaped their theories under physical forces. In connection with naturalism Empedocles accepted a spiritual expression for constructive forces; and Anaxagoras passed on to a distinct dualism. The four elements of Empedocles indicated a gain in thought, as compared with the single element of Thales. Differences were recognized in it at their true value, and also the hasty character of the previous generalization. True philosophy demands, as the first essential of every process really explanatory, that it shall preserve the absolute integrity of the facts under consideration, and interpret them under their precise shades of difference; to first blur and mingle the colors of a painting, and then to refer them all to one shade, is not explanation. It is effacing the facts to be explained. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)