Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
If we proceed from an exclusively historical point of view, then yes, it is valid, because the presence of Socrates ' contemporaries in the list of pre-Socratics already calls into question the chronological meaning of the term. A. V. Lebedev's argumentation is always balanced, provocative in the best sense, and productive for philosophical studies.�
But in favor of this term says
An analogy with the term “prehistoric”. It is clear that the line between prehistoric and historical is blurred, and individual prehistoric events were contemporary with historical ones, but nevertheless the heuristic meaning of the word “prehistoric” is clear to everyone.
The ability to relate and not confuse the oldest philosophy as a problematization of non-philosophy and the oldest philosophy as its oldest state, distinguishing between “pre-philosophy” and “proto – philosophy”, just as “prehistoric” and “proto-historical” are distinguished (German vor-and ur -). In this sense, the term “pre-socratics” is very appropriate for a philosophy that is problematic, but not yet based on discussion. Whereas “early Greek philosophers” may indicate both aspects, which are just important to distinguish.�
Heidegger used this term to reactualize this philosophical tradition in world philosophy, whereas we do not know any similar experiments of world reactualization based on the term “early Greek philosophers”.
Actually, A.V. Lebedev is not the first to criticize the term “pre-Socratics”; this has happened before in Western antiquity, but it did not lead to any significant consequences. I can offer an article by K. V. Reichert on this topic, which, in my opinion, quite convincingly analyzes the arguments of A. V. Lebedev. cyberleninka.ru
In brief, the conclusions of the article are as follows: A. V. Lebedev's arguments are of interest and cause for discussion, but they are not convincing enough to change the already century-old tradition of using the term. Moreover, those options for replacing the term “pre-socratics” that Lebedev himself suggests are not more successful or accurate.