This book’s shortcomings aren’t really its fault. The presocratics weren’t systematic thinkers, and even if they were none of their writings survive intact. The editor Jonathan Barnes does a fine job of putting them together, but even he admits that many of the arrangements are arbitrary.
Emerging consensus on the infinite. The “infinite” implies “boundary markers” (216).
If God is infinite, and infinity transcends boundaries, can he even be named and spoken? Did Greek Philosophy lead us to this point?
Another consensus (rightly) is that the gods were silly, but the place the gods held was not abandoned. The concept of “number” took its place; “different angles were assigned to different gods” (Philolaus, quoted by Proclus, 219). This became the realm of “forms” with Plato. With Anchoretic Christianity the place of the forms were transformed to the realm of saints and angels (per Tillich).
St Paul said we are no longer under the elemental spirits of the age (Galatians 3-4).
For better or worse “ousia/physis/essence” usually connoted materiality. It was the stuff of the universe and the universe was usually considered eternal. The editor doesn’t draw this out but this explains some of the problems in the early church on Christology. They weren’t simply sinful heretics by refusing to say that the Son was the same ousia of the Father. They understand ousia to be material, which the Father was not.
Is the axiom “like is produced by like” (Democritus) correlative to the chain of being: as above, so below?
What’s the difference between this and neopaganism?
Democritus says it’s stupid to want children (280) and sex is irrational. Compare that with the Old Testament. Maybe there is a difference between Hebrew and Greek thought.