Talk:Thales of Miletus

Phoenician Philosopher

Peter Gulutzan, why did you undo my edit? Thales was Phoenician, or at least he is considered PHoenician by some researchers, according to the article, and a Philosopher. פעמי-עליון (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the lack of an edit summary in my reversion, that was not intentional. I am aware of the claim about Phoenicia (see archive 2 for an earlier discussion of that), but when categorizing one should avoid putting a point of view and should stick to what reliable sources commonly and consistently say, see WP:CATPOV and WP:CATDEF. So I oppose putting Thales in the category "Phoenician philosopher". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in Hebrew wikipedia the principles concerning categories are different from what you described. Thank you for explaining! פעמי-עליון (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thales is phoenician from 🇱🇧 Lebanon HE WAS NOT GREEK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1851:8007:D090:1:1:DA2C:3B99 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thales was a natively born politician from an ancient Greek city-state in Asia Minor (now Turkey). He spoke Greek, but may have had some Phoenician ancestors. This article describes the situation pretty clearly as-is. –jacobolus (t) 21:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Attribution of "first" philosopher

There's been some recent deletion-reversion-deletion here that verges on edit warring. I'd like to share my thoughts and start a discussion before contributing edits myself. Here is the passage of interest verbatim:

Some contemporary researchers of the history of philosophy believe that the introduction of Thales as the first philosopher is not the result of an independent historical investigation and the dominant opinion of ancient Greeks namely Aristotle, but rather the result of changes in the history of philosophy in the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe to introduce the roots of philosophy as Greek with the motives of excluding the East from the history of philosophy in an effort they consider to be racially motivated.

While I find it a bit lengthy, I read the full article here ... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09608788.2022.2029347 ... and find it well researched and reviewed. I find the concerns raised by the paper are relevant to this article and worth citing here. Further support against a view of ancient Greeks attributing to Thales the title of "first philosopher" can be found in the references of that same paper, e.g. Boys-Stones, et al.

For my part, I'd like to clarify the extent of the claim being made. Cantor does address an oft cited ancient source of it to point out, as quoted from the paper:

" Aristotle does not claim that Thales is the father of philosophy tout court, but rather the founder of a specific type of philosophy:

Most (οἱ πλϵῖστοι) of the first philosophers (τῶν … πρώτων φιλοσοφησάντων) thought that principles in the form of matter (τὰς ἐν ὕλης ϵἴδϵι … ἀρχὰς) were the only principles of all things […] Thales, the founder (ἀρχηγὸς) of this type of philosophy (τῆς τοιαύτης … φιλοσοφίας), says that it is water.26

(Metaph. I.3, 983b6–8; 20–21= Th 29) The type of philosophy at issue is evidently natural philosophy,27 which, in its most primitive instantiations (beginning with Thales), we are told amounted to the idea that a principle in the form of matter is the only principle of all things.28 "

... ahem, so if we consider this, setting aside the other arguments against even asserting that much in the paper, we might say with confidence something like, "Aristotle considered Thales the first natural philosopher". But there are other arguments in the paper:

" However, another Peripatetic student of Aristotle’s, Dicaearchus (fourth century BCE), apparently refused to consider Thales a philosopher at all, suggesting that his pursuits were practical rather than theoretical (D.L. I.40 = Th 237).66 It is also unclear whether Eudemus (late fourth century BCE), another one of Aristotle’s pupils, accepted the view that Thales was the first to engage even in natural philosophy. Eudemus extensively discussed the cosmogonies of the Babylonians, Persians, Phoenicians, and Egyptians (in a work that also contained a paraphrase of the first lines of the Babylonian creation myth, the Enūma Eliš),67 and possibly saw them as being continuous with Greek natural philosophy.68

In short, Thales’ status as a pioneering natural philosopher was contested even in the Peripatetic school within a generation of Aristotle’s time. "

... so, while we might say something like "Aristotle considered Thales the first natural philosopher", we would be better informed and informing to point out that this view was not beyond reproach in his time. Which I should remind everyone was centuries after Thales.

Anyway, if this topic interests you, I suggest reading the paper. I'll await comments before adding a reworded version of the original edit, with url added to the reference. Sharing any supporting sources not in the paper's bibliography, or direct commentaries or reviews of this paper, would of course be appreciated. JimsMaher (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Busts of Thales

There are apparently two, one in Rome and one in the Vatican. The Vatican one appears used in this article, from a double-herm of Bias and Thales. The one in Rome is considered dubious but it also worth mentioning. Cake (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ursa Major

This claim is made:

He was also credited with discovering the position of the constellation Ursa Major.

It is very unclear what this is supposed to mean. The Greeks knew of that constellation and they would have known quite well where in the sky to find it, so "discovering the position" makes no sense.

It is possible that he was the one to point out Ursa Minor to the Greeks, the Phoenicians having known it and used it for navigation.

This definitely needs a reference and clarification. Dismalscholar (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

O'Grady (2005) Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece has "He gave astronomical advice of economic importance on navigation by suggesting that sailors steer by the constellation Ursa Minor as a more accurate method of navigation than Ursa Major." –jacobolus (t) 06:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently one source of this claim is a poem by Callimachus, Iambus 1: "[The son] sailed to Miletus, since the victory belonged / to Thales, who was otherwise supple in judgment / and was said to have delineated the little stars / of the Wagon, by which Phoenicians sail." –jacobolus (t) 07:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A significant -maybe - point is that at Thales' time ("epoch" in an astronomical sense), the north celestial pole didn't point to within a half-degree of Polaris, but was well away towards Thuban (I forget which constellation). So proposing using Ursa Minor as a *guide* to the "north" direction would have been a *change* to current practice. If, indeed, there was a "current" practice.

The projection of the north-geographic pole onto the celestial sphere changes on about a 22500 Yr cycle because of the precession of the Earth's axis. The proper motion of stars is also an issue generally, but minor in this case.

AKarley (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Olive Presses

In the olive presses section it is stated that: A story, with different versions, recounts how Thales achieved riches from an olive harvest by prediction of the weather. In one version, he bought all the olive presses in Miletus after predicting the weather and a good harvest for a particular year. Another version of the story has Aristotle explain that Thales had reserved presses in advance, at a discount, and could rent them out at a high price when demand peaked, following his prediction of a particularly good harvest. This first version of the story would constitute the first historically known creation and use of futures, whereas the second version would be the first historically known creation and use of options.

This is incorrect. The latter version of the story is indeed an example of an option if Thales had the right, but not the obligation to purchase or rent the presses. The first version of the story, however is not an example of a forward contract. A forward contract gives the long party the right and the obligation to purchase a given asset at a certain date. The first example given is just a generic example of purchasing something. The source cited correctly makes this distinction, but it seems to have been missed by the editor.

Additionally, the correct term would be forwards not futures since there is no exchange or standardized contract. HumanBeeng2123 (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)