I haven't read the Waterfield book but Jonathan Barnes' Early Greek Philosophy has been helpful to me. They seem to have the same basic layout of having all of the fragments tied together with context and exposition, so as introductions go I wouldn't imagine there'd be much to separate them. Beyond that kind of dry format Heidegger's obv v good on the pre-Socratics, and while offering ~unconventional~ readings he doesn't really do that major-thinker-writing-on-major-thinkers thing of completely assimilating them into his own thought.
― m. yeux, Thursday, 29 December 2011 17:19 (twelve years ago) link
Really? I haven't read Heidegger on the Vorsokrater. I really enjoyed the pre-Socratics as much as anyone in Philosophy.
― M. White, Thursday, 29 December 2011 17:23 (twelve years ago) link
iirc his essay 'The Anaximander Fragment' is particularly good. But looking at it again now I may have been lying terribly about the not-assimilating part...
― m. yeux, Thursday, 29 December 2011 17:29 (twelve years ago) link
:( Is his prose as turgid as usual?
― M. White, Thursday, 29 December 2011 17:33 (twelve years ago) link
ha, I dunno, scanning through and reading bits here and there it looks alright, but then I've spent the last three months reading The Phenomenology of Spirit so I'm sure I've lost all sense of what constitutes readable philosophical writing.
― m. yeux, Thursday, 29 December 2011 17:49 (twelve years ago) link