The Principle of Charity and Thales: Making Sense of Apparent Nonsense

When reading philosophical texts, the student will inevitably come across passages which seem odd, confused, or even simply wrong. Yet the student learns that these passages were written by some of the greatest minds of the ages. How does one understand this?

Wise readers will apply an approach called ‘the principle of charitable interpretation.’ This approach looks at a text, seeks and explores competing possible interpretations, and attributes the most rational intentions to the author, and attributes truest meaning to the text, or the meaning most likely to be true, or the meaning nearest the truth — sidestepping, for the moment, exactly what it means to be “true,” and working simply with a prima facie and intuitive sense of ‘true.’

Another related approach requires the reader not to reject an entire text or its author simply because a small part of that text seems to be in error. A number of major authors have repeated the notion that garlic juice neutralizes a magnetic field. These authors — including Johannes Eck, Georg Agricola, Paracelsus, Portaleone, Andreas Libavius, and Johann Baptist van Helmont, among others — wrote texts which were otherwise relatively rational and reliable.

So it is with Thales, the world’s first philosopher. Donald Palmer applies the “principle of charity” to Thales:

I regret to say that I must add three other ideas that Aristotle also attributes to Thales. My regret is due to the capacity of these ideas to undercut what has seemed so far to be a pretty neat foundation for future science. Aristotle says that, according to Thales,

(A) The earth floats on water the way a log floats on a pond.
(B) All things are full of gods.
(C) A magnet (loadstone) must have a soul, because it is able to produce motion.

The first of these ideas, (A), is puzzling because it seems gratuitous. If everything is water, then it is odd to say that some water floats on water. (B) shows us that the cut between Mythos and Logos is not as neat in Thales’ case as I have appeared to indicate. (C) seems somehow related to (B), but in conflicting ways. If according to (B) all things are full of gods, then why are the magnets mentioned in (C) any different from everything else in nature? No surprise that over the years scholars have spilled a lot of ink — and, because the debate still goes on, punched a lot of computer keys — trying to make sense of these ideas that Aristotle attributes to Thales.

Now, it is clear that the earth does not float on water. But the reader can charitably note the similarities between “floating” on water and “floating” in space. While the former depends on relative densities and the latter depends on gravitation and orbital physics, the affect of floating is similar in both cases.

More than 2,000 years after the fact, it is difficult to guess at what Thales had in mind when he wrote — or perhaps said — that “all things are full of gods.” Perhaps he thought that there were forces which kept objects in existence: otherwise, they might simply cease to exist. Or perhaps he noted that objects had the power to create certain sensations in the human mind: colors, textures, scents, sounds, and tastes. Modern readers will probably never know with certainty what Thales meant, but even these two quick examples show charity in speculating about what he might have meant.

Likewise, the notion that a magnet has a soul is clearly an acknowledgement of the mysterious power it has. Thales lacked the vocabulary and electromagnetic concepts which enabled Michael Faraday to describe, explain, and name magnetic fields. If Faraday didn’t have the advantages of using the concepts of modern physics, then perhaps he, too, would have attributed “souls” and “gods” to magnets and other physical objects.

In the case of Thales and other Presocratic thinkers, an additional factor obliges the reader to extend charity when reading them: the texts themselves are fragmentary and have been through a long and perilous process of transmission. If an author, centuries after his work, were known only by a few sentences, plucked from his various texts, which were perhaps garbled as they’d been copied and re-copied, and which lacked not only the larger context of the book from which they came, but also lacked a situational context which might show which concerns the author was addressing, then such an author might be easily misunderstood, and might easily appear as mistaken, confused, or ignorant — when in fact he might be none of those things.

The value of the “principle of charity” is that it causes the reader to explore the text further and more carefully instead of dismissing it: and the reader will find that further exploration rewarding.