History of
Ancient Philosophy
Anaxagoras:
nAn Ionian from Clazomena, Asia Minor, moved to
Professor Gale Justin
nInfluenced by Parmenides’
denial of coming to be and perishing.
nPosits an original mixture in
which everything is mixed together with everything.
Anaxagoras:
nInfluenced by Parmenides’
denial of coming to be and perishing.
nRecall Parmenides has asked
“From what did the thing that was lacking come? I forbid you to say or to think
that it came from non-being.” (Text, p. 44).
Fragment 4:
“All things were together, infinite in number and in
smallness, namely the mixing of moist and dry, and hot and cold, bright and
dark, and a great quantity of seeds, not at all like one another.”
The ‘basic’ things in the mixture include:
nThe material out of which
ordinary objects are composed: bone, flesh, wood.
nQualities such as hot,
cold, wet, dry, colors
nSeeds: perhaps microscopic
particles of the previous mentioned ‘basic’ things.
Moreover, Anaxagoras holds that there is a portion of
everything in everything.
“As it was in the beginning, so now, all things are
together,” (fr. 4)
The portions of ‘everything in everything’ even in the
basic things, are best thought of as being an amount of X in Y rather than a
discrete bit of X in y.
Just as there are portions of salt in salt water, there are portions of wet in
dry, portions of wood in flesh.
So ordinary things are mixtures of
microscopic portions of everything. They appear to us as kinds because:
Each thing is “most plainly those things of which it
contains the most,” (fr. 12)
Change comes about by mixture and separation:
“The dense is separated from the rare, the hot from the
cold, the bright from the dark and the dry from the moist.
. .But nothing is altogether separated off except Mind.”
So for Anaxagoras:
nThere is no coming to be or
perishing.
nThere are many (perhaps
unlimited many) different types of Basic Things.
nThere is a portion of
everything in everything.
nEach thing is of the kind that
predominates in it.
nMind “rules all things.”
Mind:
nBeing unmixed it is ‘fine’
enough to permeate and operate on all other things at any time, as an
immaterial substance might be able to do.
nOriginates the motion of
the mixture.
nKnow in some sense the
nature of each portion of the mixture.
Fragment 5:
“The things which were mixed together, and separated off,
and divided, were all understood by Mind.
All were arranged by Mind, as also the revolution which caused the
separation off.”
The claim that Mind “knows all things”:
Suggests that mind for Anaxagoras is not just a
mechanical agent. But perhaps is not yet conceived as a moral agent, since mind
does not appear to act in order to achieve the best. This is Socrates’ criticism of Anaxagoras’
Mind: pun intended.
In sum, Anaxagoras
nAdheres to the Parmenides’
prohibition on coming to be and perishing.
nHe allows for change in the
form of mixture and separation (reconstitution).
nHe recognizes that infinite analysis has
no end.
nHe clearly distinguishes
between mover and moved.
But Anaxagoras does not explain what happens to the
predominate portion in a kind of thing that changes to another kind of
thing. If bread changes to bone and
flesh, what happens to all the bread?
Waste products are not predominately bread.
Empedocles:
nContemporary of Anaxagoras
and Zeno
nAn aristocrat from Acragas, A Greek city in
nInfluenced by Parmenides
and also by Pythagoras, both of whom resided in
Agrees with Parmenides that:
“Coming into being from that which in no way is is inconceivable, and . . . it is impossible that that
which is should be destroyed,” (fr. 11, p. 49).
For Empedocles:
nAt the most fundamental level
of existence there is no coming to be or perishing.
nThe ‘roots’ of the natural
world are eternal.
nThey do not change into one
another.
nThey are fixed in quantity.
Fragments 6 and 17:
“Hear first the four roots of all things: shining Zeus, life bringing Hera, Aidoneus and Nestis who with her
tears fills the springs of moral man with water. And these things never cease
from shifting.”
Which god is identified with what natural elements is
disputed.
nZeus probably represents
fire.
nNestis,
a Sicilian goddess, represents water.
nHera may represent air.
nAidoneus,
another name for Hades, may represent earth.
On Empedocles’ theory:
These roots are not fundamentally opposed to each other
so that they mix and separate due to the influence of love and hate. From the reciprocal influence of these forces
the four roots join to form ordinary objects.
Fragment 9:
“Fire and water and earth and the boundless height of
air, and also hate and love--all these elements are equal but each has its own
character.”
Simplicius says:
“He makes the material elements four in number . . . But his real first principles are the
ones that impart motion to these, Love and Strife. The elements are mixed together by Love and
separated by strirfe. ”
Empedocles:
nAgrees with Parmenides that
Nothing can not be.
nAssumes four primary
elements that cannot change in quality or in quantity.
nAssumes that these four
elements can be divided and united to form smaller and larger compounds.
Empedocles’ conception of love and strife:
nThese forces separate and
combine the elements.
nThey always exist, being
apparently physically present in the elements.
nThey also account for
cosmic cycles: periods of complete
bonding and complete separation of the elements.
Despite the mystical features of his account, Empedocles:
nDraws a clear distinction
between elements and compounds.
nMay also have thought in
terms of ultimate elements and thus anticipated the atomists who clearly did
present a theory of the ultimate structure of matter.