My overall reaction to the preface, introduction, and chapter 1 was quite pleasing. Most of the reading I related to my own life and experiences. I don't know if this would qualify for philosophical thinking or just an extreme case of self centeredness. But I will try to convey some of my thoughts in regards to the reading.
One of the first explanations of philosophy regarding it's task being to think about itself, question assumptions and every system of thought including it's own is a natural system of thought I experience with any group of people. And is just one of the aspects of myself that has kept me from succeeding (according to societal standards). Again, I repeat only one. I would imagine that a lot of the contemporary branches of philosophy mentioned would cover a lot of these kinds of thoughts.
I had some confusing thoughts and interest regarding Mythos and Logos. Some of the terminology I've heard in the church I attend, along with the Greek meaning for Sophia. I will continue to weave in my thoughts on myth and church.
Thales idea that everything is water did not interest me. Weather or not it was proven, I would not find that too terribly interesting, and have a similar a response to Pythagoras's number theory. So right off the bat I'm thinking I may prefer Mythos, presuming that I'm understanding the difference of the two.
I resonate more with the Mythos idea more, but also don't believe in a specific "strong time" when things either began or the spirit was stronger. Another characteristic of Mythos interested me and that was the idea that if ritual ceased the center would not hold, and things would fall into chaos. The church that I attend is non-literal and has allowed me to explore a lot of boundless thoughts and ideas for which I am grateful. But it would not be such a stretch for me to imagine that a lot of people would think this. On one hand I'd like to think I don't think that, but on the other I could see that if there was not such a spiritual void in so many peoples lives, the world would not be in such dire straight. (Spiritual principals, not religion per say.) I questioned the statement that "societies based on Myth are traditionally unhistorical" not that I doubt they were traditionally unhistorical but my current experience attending a church that focus's on Myth it is also very historically minded.
Heraclitus "All things come into change through opposition and all are in flux like a river" I have no resistance to this kind of thinking and also don't see this as pessimistic thinking. I also have a sense of relief getting rid of the whole "center" idea altogether, however I will not come to a conclusion on this matter until I read beyond the preface, introduction and 1st chapter. The book suggests that the change was governed by Logos. So it's possible I'm more logical than I think.
The only thought I had on Pomades was that he must of been chewing on some wild wood weed.
I particularly liked Socrates. I've had a "stupid" complex most of my life, and after some counseling, and experiencing a learning disability with my son, I have come to believe that I'm not inferior in intellect, but my thoughts and ways of learning are not necessarily cohesive with mainstream teaching. I enjoyed the idea that Socrates was more intelligent than everyone else because he knew he knew nothing.