Anaxagoras was a Pre-Socratic thinker who was literally related to Socrates. Elder than Socrates by about 30 years, it was probable that one of Anaxagoras’ student, Archelaus, might have been a teacher for the young Socrates. Socrates has certainly been influenced by the teachings of Anaxagoras’ school of thought, yet he has since departed from his teacher’s approach for more original directions. Like Democritus of the Atomist school, Anaxagoras was a natural philosopher with a strong scientific mind, contributing not only to ontology but also empirical fields like astronomy and meteorology. The natural philosopher was also a close associate of Pericles, and the Athenian politician has learnt a lot from the wise philosopher. Presumably due to his mind-blowing philosophy (we will see how later) and the fact that he was acquainted with Pericles, Anaxagoras was soon charged with impiety – an offence that could apparently forced onto anyone who diverted from a traditional outlook of Greek religion, and he was exiled as a result. The philosopher’s reputation might be conflicted in his lifetime, yet his subsequent influence to later thinkers is profound, from theoretical science to Hegelian studies.
Anaxagoras has developed a complete system for this philosophy, and some of his key ideas are still insightful by today’s standard. Yet the interpretation of his philosophy has proved to be challenging because certain of his doctrines were expressed in rather obscure or ambiguous ways, and that resulted in drastically different interpretations from later academics, which often depended on how they defined some of the more ambiguous terms in the Pre-Socratic thinker’s work. Some of his more abstract ideas may also sound strange if we view them from the standard of modern empirical science. My aim here is to spell out the consensus of Anaxagoras’ key doctrines and hopefully provide some starting points for philosophizing his interesting ideas.
Like many of his fellow Pre-Socratic thinkers, Anaxagoras wished to find out the origin of the universe and where it was heading to. Thus he placed a lot of concerns on the issues of both cosmogony and cosmology. For the Greek thinker, every thing in the world had a tendency to be developed into its final form. Yet the attributes (or properties, a more straight-forward term to address Anaxagoras’ complex wordings) present in the final form of that thing was already latent in the original form of the thing in question. So we can say that at the start, a thing has already possessed the properties that would allow it to map out its trajectory to develop into the final form.
The reason why this could happen was because of a property asserted by Anaxagoras. While he has used a number of different ways to describe that particular idea, including the word ‘seeds’ (which the meaning was supposed to be metaphorical rather than literal), that has been known as ‘homoeomeries’ since Aristotle. ‘Homoeomeries’ are defined as things that remain in the same form after they are divided. Intuitively the notion sounds impossible, and this concept has been the most controversial of Anaxagoras’s system. While the idea may be theoretically possible in an abstract manner, say, if one has a bar of pure gold and it is cut into half, we can argue the resulting halves are the same as the original because the gold atoms are homogeneous and there are no ways to distinguish between the before and after. Yet in this case we are assuming the particulate notion of matter, and that was probably not Anaxagoras’s intention because he was never attracted to any particulate theories of matter to start with.
Anaxagoras proposed that at the beginning of the universe, its state was an original mixture with infinite substances in it. All the substances would eventually be developed to all things in the world. Thus, these substances could be seen as the ‘seeds’ for the eventual world formation. Through the mixing of specific proportions of mixing the various substances, things are transformed into their respective final forms throughout the evolution of the universe. Before we move on we can notice an implication of Anaxagoras’s doctrine: even if the components of the ‘seeds’ are the same, if the proportions have changed, the outcome will also be very different. From this reasoning many researchers of the field have suggested that the Greek thinker has proposed the possibility of innumerable worlds, though they did not reach a consensus on whether these worlds were co-existent or successive.
So, what is the string-puller behind the whole system? Anticipating theological or even psychological perspectives in the modern sense of the term, Anaxagoras proposed ‘Mind’ (Greek: nous) as the organizing principle of the universe. Many commentators have since questioned the scope of the word, whether the philosopher intended to mean as a divine substance or merely the psychological capacities of animate things (like humans and animals) in the world. Vague as it may seem, Anaxagoras’s notion of ‘Mind’ did suggest it as a universal force of nature that facilitated the development of the universe. Thus for the Pre-Socratic thinker, Mind was infinite, pure and independent from the original mixture. The Mind initiated the transformation of the universe through a first rotatory movement, and the ‘seeds’ in the original mixture would divide and separate to start their transformations. It was also omniscient and possessed the ‘know how’ (a buzz word for our era?!) to transform the world towards its very end. I would argue that the notion of Nous is possibly the philosopher’s most important influence to the later generations, as many will easily equate ‘Mind’ with ‘God’ through a similar line of reasoning.
Anaxagoras’s philosophy is therefore a teleological one, of which many later philosophical systems have shared similarities. An example is in Socrates’s discussion of Homeric epic, where he placed a focus on the role of military leader, having the obligation to ensure his soldiers’ survival. Socrates was teleological in the sense that he concentrated on the purpose of the leader’s action – to ensure his men were safe. In a later era, Aristotle would similarly designate the individual action of the ruler to a teleological purpose of offering advantage to the group he was governing. Aristotle pursued the concept of teleology even further. In his work on zoology, he went as far to propose his generally teleological view of nature. The philosopher offered teleological explanations as the understanding of goals and final causes present in life.
by Ed Law
Conatus Classics
