10 - Mind Over Mixture: Anaxagoras

Peter discusses Anaxagoras, focusing on his theory of universal mixture ("everything is in everything") and the role played by mind in Anaxagoras' cosmos.

Press 'play' to hear the podcast: 

You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialize correctly.

Further Reading: 

D.W. Graham, “The Postulates of Anaxagoras,” Apeiron 27 (1994), 77-121.

W. Mann, “Anaxagoras and the Homoiomere,” Phronesis 25 (1980), 228-49.

M. Schofield, An Essay on Anaxagoras (Cambridge: 1980).

G. Vlastos, “The Physical Theory of Anaxagoras,” in Philosophical Review, 59 (1950), 31-57.

Stanford Encyclopedia: Anaxagoras

Luke Cash's picture

Anaxagoras

I found it very interesting when you got into talking about teleology around minute five of that podcast, when you were criticizing Socrate's supposed approach to Anaxagoras' work. Would you say that Anaxagoras actually concerned himself with teleology?

Peter Adamson's picture

Anaxagoras on teleology

Hi Luke,

Thanks for your comments, I'm working on replying to them now! This is a tricky one. I think that the reason given by Socrates about why Anaxagoras should be interested in teleology is perhaps a reason to think he actually was: the talk of Mind, which suggests that the physical processes he describes are somehow being steered. On the other hand this later period of Pre-Socratic philosophy is distinctive in denying teleology -- think of Empedocles' "evolutionary" theory or, of course, the atomists. Maybe Socrates (or rather Plato) is right to say there is a tension in Anaxagoras' account here.

Peter

Brandon's picture

A prelude to Socrates... and monotheism?

Anaxagoras theory of the mind steering everything seems to call forth the idea of a power - in this case the mind - that is the reason for creation, and courses through us all. Though Socrates may have been a bit turned off by Anaxagoras' interest in physical process, we can find that Anaxagoras took his philosophy of the mind as the creator and finding proof for it the physical world around him. It is hard to doubt that Socrates, from coming into contact with Anaxagoras, comes to create his philosophy of forms, his love of the "good", and in many ways his creation of what comes to be the Christian god - the mind, the creator, the one that is, as Anaxagoras says, "above everything else."

I would like to mention that this podcast has brought to light a period of philosophy that I was ignorant of in many ways and now find that it is indeed the foundation upon which our principal western philosophers seem to rest upon. I also find it interesting that once we have our first philosopher, Thales, we are already beginning to abandon "the gods", and move to a more simplified and central figure. "God", the mind, whatever it may be called, these philosophers seem driven to move towards a principal, SINGLE reason/foundation for creation to be founded upon. Taking this into light, do you think polytheism to be an aspect of culture from an earlier intellectual period, when nature, the wilderness and barbarism were still the leading forces of the times? What truly attributes to the fall of "the gods"?

Once again Professor Adamson, this has been a wonderful podcast. I find it one of the treasures of the internet, allowing me to have conversation and discourse with these great philosophers, their ideas, and to have at your behest a wonderful analysis of these great thinkers. With great joy to look I forward to the rest of your podcasts - wonderful!

Peter Adamson's picture

Mono- vs Poly-theism

Thanks very much for the encouraging comments about the podcast! Regarding your question about monotheism, I would largely agree that ancient philosophers tended towards a more single-principle explanation of the universe -- albeit that sometimes this took materialist forms, as in the Stoics. But there is a major caveat: late ancient Platonists go for a single first principle (the One) but integrate many divine beings into the system produced by that principle. I don't think there was any inevitability that monotheism should win out, and we should also remember that in other cultures religious systems that from a European perspective would be called "polytheistic" (e.g. Hinduism) have continued in conditions that were far from barbaric!

TD's picture

The mixing of the unmixed

Mixing water and wine?

This involves mixing the unmixed to created the unmixed, for nothing can exists in a mixed state since all is the same (everything) and yet it is a higher state of mixture that truly does mix.