THALES AND RUSSELL

In my sketchy and sporadic glimpses of the history of Western philosophy, I am always interested in what Bertrand Russell has to say on the subjects which I am treating. In Thales’s case, Russell is not interested in the first philosopher as much as, say, Nietzsche was. This entry explains Russell’s attitude, and as it will be followed by Nietzsche’s take on Thales, this miniseries on Thales will be nearly perfectly balanced, at least as stock is concerned.

Even if Russell is not very much interested in Thales (There are many legends about him, but I do not think more is known than the few facts I have mentioned), he is quite fair to him as a man of science but less fair, in my view, as a philosopher, compared no Nietzsche’s more imaginative assessment. Rather than quoting Russell where he repeats the Thalesian trivia which we have already quoted from other sources, I shall limit my Russell quotes to two separate paragraphs, where he expresses his personal opinion, which makes them original.

In every history of philosophy for students, the first thing mentioned is that philosophy began with Thales, who said that everything is made of water. This is discouraging to the beginner, who is struggling---perhaps not very hard---to feel that respect for philosophy which the curriculum seems to expect. There is, however, ample reason to feel respect for Thales, though, perhaps, rather as a man of science than as a philosopher in the modern sense of the word…

The statement that everything is made of water is to be regarded as a scientific hypothesis, and by no means a foolish one. Twenty years ago (that is, around the early 1920’s), the received view was that everything is made of hydrogen, which is two thirds of water. The Greeks were rash in their hypotheses, but the Milesian school, at least, was prepared to test them empirically. Too little is known of Thales to make it possible to reconstruct him at all satisfactorily, but of his successors in Miletus much more is known, and it is reasonable to suppose that something of their outlook came from him. His science and his philosophy were both crude, but they were such as to stimulate both thought and observation.

Russell is very cautious, scholarly cautious, to be precise, in his evaluation of Thales, and for this reason he denies him a more lavish praise, which is probably his due. Russell’s last quoted sentence (His science and his philosophy were both crude, but they were such as to stimulate both thought and observation.) contains in it however the most lavish praise that can be showered upon any philosopher, and, had he expanded on it a little bit, I would have been happier with his general assessment of Thales as a philosopher no matter how much higher he raises Thales the scientist over Thales the sage.