Before the Presocratics, mythology and religion were the guiding forces of Greek thought. Mythologists and prophecies, such as Homer and Hesiod, relied solely on the knowledge gained from the mythical muses to explain the origins of the gods and man. It was not until 585 BC, when Thales correctly predicted the arrival of a solar eclipse, that philosophical thought became important. Thales' work is significant because it represents a historical break with the status quo of recourse to the profession. This new epistemological process would give rise to an era of metaphysical inquiry that would ultimately lead to the creation of science and modern branches of philosophy. The first pre-Socratic, Thales, and his mythological contemporaries differ in several key areas: their motivations and methods for acquiring knowledge, and how they practice that knowledge. These distinctions are what makes Thales' approach so radical for its time. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Metaphysical inquiry is the natural outcome of human wonder. In ancient Greece, most were content to take the word of prophets who affirmed mystical insights into the ultimate realm of the gods while others, like Thales, relied on the observable to answer questions about the nature of reality. This latter type of thinker has the advantage of reason and repeatability in his observations to prove his point. Thales hypothesized that the arc of all matter was water. Since this idea was based on observation and logic, it is universal and could be translated for philosophers of future generations. Aristotle, philosopher and historian of philosophy, was able to understand Thales' reasoning regardless of the source of the ideas. In “Metaphysics” Aristotle describes his understanding of Thales' hypothesis: “Perhaps the idea came to him from seeing that the nourishment of all things is moist, and that heat itself arises from this and lives on this (the principle of all things is that from which they come)” (Cagliata 2). Whether Thales' statement is true or not, it is reasonable to postulate that everything is water due to the humidity of life here on Earth. What is most notable here is Thales' approach, as it relies solely on observation aimed at finding a logical conclusion. Pre-Socratic philosophers had the advantage of using reason as common ground between themselves and their ideas. This created an ever-increasing dialogue that was continued by the other Milesian pre-Socratics. Anaximander and Anaximenes each proposed alternative fundamental realities, and each additional theory invited more rational investigation (Curd 4). In contrast, there was no common ground between religions or even between the gods of a religion. Socrates addresses this problem in “Euthyphro” as he works to find a definition of piety. “But you say that the same things are considered right by some gods and unjust by others, and because they argue about these things they are at odds and at war with each other” (Plato 7e-8a). Here Socrates demonstrated to Euthyphro how fleeting the meanings of pious and impious are. If there is no agreement among the gods on what behavior they prefer, then any action could be considered pious or impious. This demonstrates the fragility of religious knowledge. It has no logic or universality that unites it. It can be left ambiguous so that power-seekers can translate it in a way that is convenient for them. The nature of religious knowledge is such that exclusivity is encouraged regarding who can obtain the knowledge. Hesiod claimed to have learned the origin of the cosmos from the muses “Tell me these things, Muses of Olympus, from.