be indifferent to technical progress, there is evidence . . . of the pride which the greeks of the end of the sixth century took in these achievements" (31). He goes on to supply ample evidence to support this claim.
Farrington's basic argument is that the early Greeks---the Ionians and Milesians, along with Heraclitus---were indeed scientists, dealing with the material world in scientific and technical terms and methods, although naively and with minimal sophistication at times. Despite the crudity of some of their efforts, he champions them as scientists against the later Greeks, beginning with Pythagoras and continuing with Plato, who the author sees as religious rather than scientific.
My gut reaction to the book is that it is certainly a fresh way of looking at both groups of Greek thinkers, be they scientific or religious or at times a combination of the two. My own previous readings have struck me as concluding that the earlier Greeks were crude predecessors to the later, more sophisticated, complex and systematic thinkers of later Greek philosophy. Farrington has opened my eyes to a starkly contrasting view. I do not know if I agree with Farrington or not. It does seem to me that he has conveniently grouped the earlier and later Greeks according to scientific versus religious thinkers. He himself recognizes this problem when he writes, for example,
Aristotle could . . . support his incorrect celestial philosophy by the latest findings of astronomy. Science does not advance evenly along its whole course, but, like the planets, now hurries, now halts, and sometimes even seems to be in reverse (101-102).
Nevertheless, Farrington is effective in trying to plot a more historical map for the development of Greek thought and science. He argues that earlier works on the Greeks have been too blinded by admiration and awe for the later Greeks, and that a truly historical record will show a process of two steps forward and...