This article explores notions about Nietzsche’s career as a philologist and his fascination with the Greeks. It considers his interest in Homer and the Greek philosophers—in particular, Heraclitus and Pyrrho. For Nietzsche, ancient Greeks such as Heraclitus and Homer were interesting not because of their doctrines, but because of the example they themselves provided of certain psychological types. Like the ancient skeptics following Pyrrho, Nietzsche was generally more interested in the psychological consequences of philosophical doctrines than in their content, and (...) like those skeptics he often rejected any ambitions to limn the true nature of reality. (shrink)

(1976). Anaxagoras in Response to Parmenides. Canadian Journal of Philosophy: Vol. 6, Supplementary Volume 2: New Essays on Plato and the Pre-Socratics, pp. 61-85.

Anaxagoras’ “nous” has a cosmological value. Additionally, it has inspired interesting reflections in order to understand metaphysically the intellect. The question we want to answer is twofold. On one hand, we will inquire whether or not Anaxagoras has understood correctly the nature of the intellect. On the other hand, we will discern if our author has understood the peculiarity of consciousness. The answer to these questions will probably be negative. Notwithstanding that, it will be possible to ask whether or not (...) Anaxagoras was able to detect at least the basic elements for a metaphysics of the intellect and, consequently, for an ontology of consciousness. (shrink)

In the last few years, a new paradigm of the knowledge of the divinity in Aristotle has emerged, affording the possibility of understanding him as efficient cause. In that case, if God is efficient cause and gives rise to teleology, this must have some existential significance for man. We can ask ourselves therefore whether the knowledge of metaphysics can offer some orientation also for ethics. Yet if this were true, the need would arise to deepen the question of how much (...) the gods love men and what would the nature of their relationship be to natural justice. Given that man is born and lives thanks to the divinity, the conclusion is that two consequences follow: a response of religious thanksgiving is needed but also, that since the will of the divinity desires the good for man, the human search for happiness is the same as the fulfillment of the divine law. All this is explained, to a certain extent, in the context of the friendship between man and the divine. (shrink)

ARISTOTLE PRESENTS HIS DOCTRINE OF GOD as the first unmoved mover as the crown of his metaphysics, and thus of his entire theoretical philosophy. He obviously considers it an important achievement. Yet the doctrine has been peculiarly resistant to interpretation. It is difficult to know where to break in to Aristotle's theology: certainly not with his proof that the first mover must be unmoved. The proof has clearly been developed for the sake of the conclusion and not vice versa. How (...) did this conclusion occur to Aristotle, and why did he want it to be true? (shrink)

Since gregory vlastos resurrected "self-predication" there justifiably has been considerable interest in "self-predication," and the interpretation of this notion is crucial for understanding plato's metaphysics. I am in agreement with vlastos in thinking that plato's degrees-of-reality ontology and his conception of forms as paradigms implies "self-predication." Nevertheless, many of plato's "self-predicational" statements (e.g., "the beautiful is beautiful," "justice is just," etc.) Arise, i believe, from a different source. Plato, at times, accepts an anaxagorean account of causation: a cause must have (...) the quality that it produces in something else. I argue that anaxagorean causation lies behind the apparently "self- predicational" statements at "parmenides" 131 c-e, "euthydemus" 301b, "hippias major" 292e, "protagoras" 330 c,e, and "phaedo" 100c. These statements are, i believe, on a par with an ethical motif of the dialogues– that a man (or the demiurge) must have the quality that he produces in another; e.g., Only a just man can make another man just. (shrink)

τοτων σ οτωσ χóντων χρ σοκεν νεναι πολλ τε καì παντοα ν πσι τοσ συγκρινομνοισ κα σπρματα π;ντων χρημ;των κα σασ χοντα κα χροισ κα σονσ. κα νθρπονσ τε συμπαγναι κα τ λλα ξᾦα σα Ψυχ;ν χει. κα τοσ γε νθρποισιν ευναι κα πλεισ συνκημνασ κα τ λλα σᾦα óσα κατεσκνασμενα, ωσπερ παρ' ημíν, και την γην αυτοισι πυειν πολλ τε και παντοιων εκεινοι τα ονηιστα συνενεγκμενοι εíσ την οικησιν χρωνται. ταυτα μεν ουν μοι λλεκται περι τσ ποκρισιοσ, xsτι οửκ (...) ν παρ' μíν μóνον ποκπιθεíη, λλ καì λλη. (shrink)

In the first argumentative section of Book 1, Lucretius establishes the existence of matter and void , and in the second identifies matter as the atoms and defines their properties . In the third section, following Epicurean tradition, he attempts to refute a representative selection of Presocratic philosophers – Heraclitus , Empedocles and Anaxagoras – whose explanations of basic matter are potential rivals to the atomist theory which he has just outlined. The climax to this section is reached in Lucretius' (...) triumphant personal claim to be an original poet and health-bringing purveyor of truth . His foregoing criticism of the Presocratics as writers and thinkers is deeply coloured by the values he openly professes here. The introductory passages to each philosopher, in particular, are highly revealing of Lucretius' personal inclinations as a poet and exhibit a virtuoso command of several styles and techniques. (shrink)

In this article, it is argued that, although there is significant debate over the nature of Anaxagoras' response to Parmenides, it is likely that Anaxagoras advances his physical theory in opposition to Parmenides' Numerical Monism. It is unlikely that Anaxagoras aims to develop a theory that harmonizes with the Predicational Monism that is sometimes ascribed to Parmenides. In addition, it is argued that, although some modern scholars suggest that Anaxagoras posits nous as a planning cause, no compelling argument has yet (...) been advanced against Plato's interpretation, according to which Anaxagoras is not a proponent of teleological explanation. (shrink)

v. 1. The ethical treatises, being the treatises of the first Ennead with Porphyry's Life of Plotinus, and the Preller-Ritter extracts forming a conspectus of the Plotinian system. Psychic and physical treatises; comprising the second and third Enneads.--v. 2. On the nature of the soul [being the foruth Ennead] The divine mind, being the treatises of the fifth Ennead. On the One and Good being the treatises of the sixth Ennead.

Anyone who attempts to reconstruct the core of Anaxagoras's philosophy must seek to determine which substances function as elements in his physical theory, his view concerning the differentiation of material things, and his views concerning the various changes to which they are subject. Unfortunately, Anaxagoras did not expend a great deal of effort in revealing the precise nature of the substances which he regarded as elements. As a result, Anaxagoras's views on differentiation and change are obscured and the first task (...) in reconstructing these views must consist of determining which substances he regarded as elements. In attempting to determine which substances are Anaxagorean elements, modern commentators have appealed to evidence drawn from a wide variety of sources: detailed analyses of the fragments, other fifth century writings, Aristotle, the ancient doxographers, and the necessity of construing Anaxagoras's elements in a certain way in order for his physical theory to avoid logical difficulties or other embarrassing consequences. The principal positions which have been defended are the following: only the opposites are elements, both the opposites and natural substances are elements, and only natural substances are elements. The first three chapters of this dissertation are primarily concerned with sources -. The conception of the opposites as corporeal ingredients, often attributed to the Pre-Socratics in general and to Anaxagoras in particular, is neither exhibited by the extant fragments nor found in major Pre-Socratic texts. Furthermore, it is not attributed to Anaxagoras by either Aristotle or the doxographers for whom only natural substances are Anaxagorean elements. The remaining three chapters contain a discussion of modern attempts to base interpretations of Anaxagoras's physical theory upon philosophical considerations. In these chapters it is argued that none of the appeals to which have been advanced by the defenders of or are compelling enough to warrant a rejection of , the view most strongly supported by the fragments and other ancient sources. In addition, serves as the basis for a detailed reconstruction of Anaxagoras's views concerning the differentiation and change of material things. (shrink)

It is a point of some interest to the historian of the social and intellectual development of Athens to determine, if possible, the exact dates between which the philosopher Anaxagoras made that city his home. As everyone knows, the tradition of the third and later centuries was not uniform. The dates from which the Alexandrian chronologists had to arrive at their results may be conveniently summed up under three headings, date of Anaxagoras' arrival at Athens, date of his prosecution and (...) escape to Lampsacus, length of his residence at Athens, The received account , was that Anaxagoras was twenty years old at the date of the invasion of Xerxes and lived to be seventy-two. This was apparently why Apollodorus placed his birth in Olympiad 70 and his death in Ol. 88. I, thus giving the years 500–428 B.C. of our reckoning, The further statement of Apollodorus that Anaxagoras xs1F24ρξατο xs03D5ιλοσοxs03D5εxs1FD6ν xs22EFπxs22EF Καλλίον has given rise to discussion; but when we remember that Demetrius of Phalerum had made what ‘Diogenes’ regards as an equivalent statement in his register of archons, and had said that Anaxagoras was twenty years old at the time, I think there can be no doubt of the meaning. Demetrius had clearly mentioned something about Anaxagoras which was looked on as giving the date at which he ‘began to philosophize,’ and had given his age at the time. The natural interpretation is that Demetrius mentioned the year of Anaxagoras’ arrival at Athens, and that this was taken as the time at which he ρξαtο φιλοσοφεlσ And it is further reasonable to suppose that this date was the source of the further statement of Demetrius, that Anaxagoras was born in or about 500 B.C. We may, I think, infer that Demetrius recorded the arrival of Anaxagoras in Athens under the year 480, giving his approximate age at that time. (shrink)

Introduction“What reason is there to suppose that those who did know Parmenides’ poem necessarily thought that he had raised a real problem which they must try to deal with? Empedocles, perhaps also Anaxagoras, knew the poem, but they pursue a very different kind of philosophy from Zeno and Melissus: why, then, must we suppose that they are seeking an alternative answer to the problem posed by Parmenides, and that their ultimate material elements are to be seen as modifications of the (...) Eleatic ἓν έόν?“These rhetorical questions, taken from M. L. West's recent book,Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient,make a useful starting point for this inquiry. They are, of course, what the grammar books call “repudiating questions“: the answer hoped for is “no reason“. The argument with which Mr. West goes on to support his negative implication is not likely to convince many students of the Presocratics. He determinedly makes light of Parmenides’ chains of argument, apparently on the ground that “these were not the actual stages of Parmenides’ thinking” — as if Parmenides ought to have been writing his intellectual autobiography instead of a philosophical argument. (shrink)

Recent accounts of the life of Protagoras differ widely from one another in their treatment of the ancient sources, and in the conclusions which they draw from them. A re-examination of the evidence, undertaken in 1949–50 as part of a study of the Prometheus trilogy, has convinced me that a new discussion is urgently needed if we are to place the earlier stages of the sophistic movement in the right context historically; and the purpose of this paper is to lay (...) at least a part of the foundation for such a discussion. Since the evidence for the life of Protagoras includes some allusions to his relations with Democritus, and there are some obvious affinities between the careers of Protagoras and Anaxagoras, I have added a short account of the relevant points in the biography of Democritus and a more detailed study of the evidence for the life of Anaxagoras. (shrink)