Most scholars contend that Anaxagoras of Clazomenae lived during the time period of 500 to 428 BCE. He was born in Ionia and later travelled to Athens, where he spent thirty years teaching and writing. Unfortunately, Anaxagoras suffered a similar fate to that of Socrates. On the charges of impiety, the Athenian government sentenced Anaxagoras to death. Fortunately, Anaxagoras decided to forego this penalty, dissimilar to Socrates, and he moved to Lampsacus, where he lived until his death. It seems as though Anaxagoras violated the religious beliefs of the Athenians; however, his ideas were directly consistent with the other Pre-Socratic natural philosophers that preceded him. In any event, he set himself apart from his tradition when he authored a very unique and innovative philosophy of first principles.
Although we have no surviving complete works of Anaxagoras, enough secondary sources and fragments exist to provide scholars with sufficient material from which they can piece together his philosophical agenda. His metaphysics, by and large, respond to the works and teachings of Parmenides, though he likely responded to the teachings of Empedocles, a student of Parmenides, as well.
Parmenides, a brilliantly innovative thinker himself, denied that change and plurality were even possible. To him, we stand at a metaphysical fork, where we must choose being or nonbeing. Nonbeing was an impossibility, he thought, because if something ceased to exist it would be insensible and no longer be anything at all. Therefore, nonbeing was a ridiculous metaphysical account. Furthermore, for change to occur, something would first start as nonbeing and become being. This, again, is an impossibility because the conclusions is based on premises that are impossible (i.e., nonbeing). Therefore, Parmenides believed that being must be unified and immutable. Scholars would call this a metaphysical monism.
Anaxagoras saw eye-to-eye with Parmenides on the impossibility of nonbeing. On the other hand, he could not concede that being was static and non-changing. To counter Parmenides' argument, Anaxagoras said that all beings contained in varying amounts all other types of being. In other words, any particular thing contained within itself different amounts of all other possible substances. Anaxagoras explained his metaphysical account as "a portion of everything in everything."
To make sense of this theory, Anaxagoras considered the diets of animals. Food may contain in itself flesh, hair, etc., because for an animal to grow hair, it must comes from hair, and for an animal to have flesh, it must come from flesh. So food, along with all other things, contain everything in them, just with different proportions of all the infinite number of possible substances. Therefore, beings exists because they have higher proportions of particular substances that give them their uniqueness.
Anaxagoras did content, however, that being originally was a unified substance. But how can a unified substance provide for difference and plurality? To explain this, Anaxagoras introduced the principle of the Nous, or the "Mind," that ordered, structured, and differentiated Being. The Mind differentiated Being by first "shaking" Being into a vortex of motion. Like the Ionians before him, he needed opposites to account for difference and plurality. As the Nous set Being into motion, Being then created the first pair of opposites, "air and ether." Anaxagoras called this "air and ether" by another phrase, "mixture and seeds." From mixture and seeds, or the initial opposites, all beings can come into existence. By mixture and seeds, Anaxagoras created the conditions for difference and, hence, beings.
As mixture and seeds differentiate Being, the Mind begins to order reality with an infinite possible number of beings. It is only through mixture and seeds that a plurality of being is possible while staying within the Pre-Socratic and Ionian traditions of unified Being. Although the Nous accounted for an efficient cause of Being and beings, or how Being became beings, his theories still lack any ultimate cause, or why Being became beings. Socrates, in fact, criticizes Anaxagoras for proposing such an innovative and full-of-potential metaphysics without providing any account of why.
Some scholars debate the finer points of Anaxagoras' philosophy, but we can know one thing for sure: he introduced a brilliantly innovative philosophy while remaining in the confines of his Ionian and Pre-Socratic traditions. Likewise, he certainly rejuvenated the possibility of change after Parmenides abandoned it. Furthermore, Anaxagoras would provide a great comparison to other thinkers, such as Gottfried Leibniz for his similar idea that the universe is contained in all atoms, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel for his theories on being and becoming, in addition to being and nonbeing.
Although we have no surviving complete works of Anaxagoras, enough secondary sources and fragments exist to provide scholars with sufficient material from which they can piece together his philosophical agenda. His metaphysics, by and large, respond to the works and teachings of Parmenides, though he likely responded to the teachings of Empedocles, a student of Parmenides, as well.
Parmenides, a brilliantly innovative thinker himself, denied that change and plurality were even possible. To him, we stand at a metaphysical fork, where we must choose being or nonbeing. Nonbeing was an impossibility, he thought, because if something ceased to exist it would be insensible and no longer be anything at all. Therefore, nonbeing was a ridiculous metaphysical account. Furthermore, for change to occur, something would first start as nonbeing and become being. This, again, is an impossibility because the conclusions is based on premises that are impossible (i.e., nonbeing). Therefore, Parmenides believed that being must be unified and immutable. Scholars would call this a metaphysical monism.
Anaxagoras saw eye-to-eye with Parmenides on the impossibility of nonbeing. On the other hand, he could not concede that being was static and non-changing. To counter Parmenides' argument, Anaxagoras said that all beings contained in varying amounts all other types of being. In other words, any particular thing contained within itself different amounts of all other possible substances. Anaxagoras explained his metaphysical account as "a portion of everything in everything."
To make sense of this theory, Anaxagoras considered the diets of animals. Food may contain in itself flesh, hair, etc., because for an animal to grow hair, it must comes from hair, and for an animal to have flesh, it must come from flesh. So food, along with all other things, contain everything in them, just with different proportions of all the infinite number of possible substances. Therefore, beings exists because they have higher proportions of particular substances that give them their uniqueness.
Anaxagoras did content, however, that being originally was a unified substance. But how can a unified substance provide for difference and plurality? To explain this, Anaxagoras introduced the principle of the Nous, or the "Mind," that ordered, structured, and differentiated Being. The Mind differentiated Being by first "shaking" Being into a vortex of motion. Like the Ionians before him, he needed opposites to account for difference and plurality. As the Nous set Being into motion, Being then created the first pair of opposites, "air and ether." Anaxagoras called this "air and ether" by another phrase, "mixture and seeds." From mixture and seeds, or the initial opposites, all beings can come into existence. By mixture and seeds, Anaxagoras created the conditions for difference and, hence, beings.
As mixture and seeds differentiate Being, the Mind begins to order reality with an infinite possible number of beings. It is only through mixture and seeds that a plurality of being is possible while staying within the Pre-Socratic and Ionian traditions of unified Being. Although the Nous accounted for an efficient cause of Being and beings, or how Being became beings, his theories still lack any ultimate cause, or why Being became beings. Socrates, in fact, criticizes Anaxagoras for proposing such an innovative and full-of-potential metaphysics without providing any account of why.
Some scholars debate the finer points of Anaxagoras' philosophy, but we can know one thing for sure: he introduced a brilliantly innovative philosophy while remaining in the confines of his Ionian and Pre-Socratic traditions. Likewise, he certainly rejuvenated the possibility of change after Parmenides abandoned it. Furthermore, Anaxagoras would provide a great comparison to other thinkers, such as Gottfried Leibniz for his similar idea that the universe is contained in all atoms, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel for his theories on being and becoming, in addition to being and nonbeing.
About the Author:
For all the Philosophy books, articles, resources, and more, please visit our site: Best Philosophy Books
没有评论:
发表评论