9. Anaxagoras of Klazomenai, or Clazomenae (499 - 427 B.C.): Nous
Cause of Changes in the Phýsis; The hen kai polýs, The One and Many.
The Philosophic Road Map
What we are dealing with here is real, heavy stuff, but the human problems to solve are even more heavy-laden, are adamant, global, globalized and fascist. Within his universal context, Empedocles set loose a philosophic chain reaction and split One into Four and added Two. Anaxagoras, Leucippus and Democritus will continue with this philosophic crushing, grinding and bombing of Being-At-Rest, of Not-Becoming, dividing and sub-dividing the One into the Many ad infinitum, beyond recognition, beyond sense-perception.
This was the ancient archaic, childlike agon to discover what changes and what remains; what begins and what ends; what is the smallest, what is the largest; what is determined, what is indetermined. All this we inherited, and we never question this approach, we just accept such formal-logical thinking as natural, as self-understood.
When the subdivision of the Concrete went beyond sense-perception, into the Abstract, the time was ripe to develop the concept (Socrates), and later, the category (Aristotle).
Nobody ever dreamt about developing a unigory, diagory, triagory, or even a zilligory, not even to mention trialogics or tetralogics, that presuppose diverses, triverses, and zilliverses. Certainly a geocentristic weltanschauung logically can only end up with a universal weltauffasung, the world outlook of labour; it is just the affirmation of a "future" heliocentric capitalist world; it cannot imagine, cannot trifferentiate (superate, excel towards) diversity, diversals, triversity, triversals or zilliversals.
Meanwhile, with the ancient crypto-archaic and real Greek atomists, we are still in the realm of the Concrete; however, it is noteworthy that in latency, „pre-Socratic“ hylozoism was already concerned with rudimentary questions about the general and the specific, the universal and the particular. Empedocles, certainly, had raised the problem of the Many (particular) in the One (universal).
Also, the intellectual movement from Anaximander’s apeiron, to Parmenides’ Super-One, to Democritus’ Mini-One, is, on the one hand, a patrian, progressive, philosophic development, concerning the penetration and interpenetration of the substance of matter, but, on the other hand, ancient materialism had become less dialectical and more mechanical, but also more contradictory; much later, this contradiction will be magnified as bourgeois mechanical materialism versus proletarian dialectical materialism of the 16th to the 20th centuries. With Marx, theoría will again be concretely dialectically linked up with praxis, and vice versa.
Nous - Cause of Changes in the Phýsis
Anaxagoras of Klazomenai, or Clazomenae (499 - 427 B.C.), like most of the ancient hylozoistic philosophers, was born in a wealthy family and received a classical Greek paideía. His father, Hegesibulos, probably had asked the Pythagorean, Hermotimos of Klazomenai, to become the special tutor of his gifted son. Around 460 B.C., at the age of 40, Anaxagoras left Ionia and brought philosophy and materialism to Pericles’ Athens.
Although Pericles „fell in, it seems with Anaxagoras, who was a scientific man; ... (and) drew from that source whatever was of value to develop his oratory“ (Plato, Phaedros), yet, his political influence was already fading; Empedocles' agon had even dislocated the Periclean Golden Age. Phidias was accused of embezzling public gold, and, eventually, in 433/432 B.C., Anaxagoras was impeached, because he did not preach the divine, „the things on high“; and, because impiously he had taught that the sun was a red-hot stone, and that the moon was made of earth.
Nowadays one could be "impeached" for far more absurd things, for example, of being "unpatriotic" or of being a "terrorist". Already in those faraway times, at the dawn of the accumulation of capital, education and socialization saw to it that citizens had to think philosophically "correct", and that they should not get "mentally challenged".
Thus, found guilty of asebeia (blasphemy against the Olympic gods), of not teaching the generally accepted things to the youth, Anaxagoras was imprisoned. In German, this is called Berufsverbot, the Law Against Radicals, the same that we will soon have in all metropolitan countries. As already noted, in the Periclean Age, other similar „Athens Trials“ -- later "Moscow Trials" or even Trials before the "Committee of Un-American Activities" -- were held against Socrates, Protagoras, Aristotle and the beautiful, intelligent hetaira, Phryne. Although the political power of the ageing Pericles was fading rapidly, he still succeeded to free his friend from prison, and assisted the ancient „seductor of innocent youth“ to get away. Anaxagoras returned to Ionia, where he founded a school in Lampsakos, and where he died later. The anniversary of his death was declared a public school holiday.
Anaxagoras' Philosophic Surplus Value
Now, concerning his philosophic contribution to the development of Eleatism and Empedoclism, as we have noted, he concentrated his teachings on the burning problems of the One and the Many, Becoming and Pass-Away, and the Cause of Motion. Anaxagoras had split up Empedocles’ four „root elements” further into an infinite number of eternal, indivisible homoiomeries or thing-seeds. Like Empedocles, he negated the void, and introduced nous (reason, mind), which was supposed to be the root source and cause of motion.
Analogous to Empedocles’ original agon-éros life-and-death struggle, nous principally had entered the sphairos and caused a cosmic whirlpool; the heavier elements and things fell towards the core, and the lightest ones floated towards the circumference. Thereafter, Anaxagoras' divine power, his "god", nous, went on vacation, and mechanical circulation took over. For this very reason he was "impeached" and ostracized from Athens.
However, analogous to Empedocles’ éros-agon, nous is not contained in everything, although in everything there is a portion of all the four basic elements. Nous, as quinta essentia (Aristotle) as fifth, material element (a synthesis of éros-agon), is uni-versal, uni-form; it is the “soul“ in all living things, men, animals, insects, etc. However, by introducing nous as cause of motion, he rejected necessity-chance, anánke-tyché.
The reason why Man acquired nous (intelligence), according to Anaxagoras, was because he had hands -- what he did not say: was because Man had labouring, toiling hands. Later, Aristotle, as objective idealist, reversed the argument, thus giving a teleological explanation. Anaxagoras, in reality, was the living, hylozoistic link between Milesian naturalism and Athenian idealism, which had elevated nous, from a minor role, to the first place in philosophy.
Furthermore, in the field of astronomy, Anaxagoras argued that, „the sun gives the moon its shine“ (Frag. 18), and that "the rainbow is the reflection of the sun in the clouds" (Frag. 19). Below, we will examine briefly the above synoptic remarks, in the light of his 22 preserved fragments. Not forgetting, that our major endeavour is to elucidate the "History of Wisdom", the Cosmic-Ontic Relations, Object-Subject relations in Empedocles’ naturalist philosophy.
The One and the Many: Everything is Infinitely Big-Small
Certainly the philosophic aporia of the One in the Many, of the hen kai polýs, is an internal, universal problem; it is simply to cognize the Many (Ones), variety in, inside the One, the One and Only; not the "Many" elsewhere -- not "dariety" or "trariety" -- in a non-spatial sense, inside/outside (into/exto of) the Diverse, Triverse, etc. As we recall, in a previous chapter we elaborated, that Zenon of Elea, in his endeavour to refute variety and change, had used dialectics against dialectics. Via four aporias, he had attempted to disprove motion and manifoldness, by using the formal-logical method of reductio ad absurdum. Anaxagoras, however, staring into the abýssos of manifoldness, decided to make the Many precisely the origin of eínai, of Essence a n d Existence, of tó ón.
Thus, the arché itself is the eternal, infinite Many; but, even Anaxagoras himself had problems to think about or to cognize this Many: „The number of substantial elements into which things subdivide themselves, we cannot calculate, nor will it be known by praxical action“. (Frag. 7, Diels, p. 87.) Of course, trying to solve this trialogical trilemma, instead of just only using Scientific Action and Philosophic Thought, he should have considered applying or generating his far-reaching human faculties of excellence or transcendence. Consequently, thanks to Anaxagoras, Parmenides’ One and All, now became the One-Many, a Cosmic Contradiction.
We ourselves have gone even "further", by identifying the "manifoldness" of the archoi, as variegated Cosmos, Einai, Nyx, etc. In this sense, this writing is not just a "History of Wisdom", it is also the elucidation, the self-explanation of the matrix of our own Science a n d Philosophy AND Emancipation. The hardest thing for us to do is to act, to think is to philosophize, to excel is to emancipate ourselves. No easy relation (road) to Praxis, Theory and Emancipy!
The Big is equivalent to the Small; in reality, everything is infinitely big, as well as infinitely small According to Anaxagoras, Manifold-Being is Infinite-Essence, and originally, archaically: „all things were together, infinite in number and in minuteness, because the infinitesimal itself is limitless. And, as long as everything was together, nothing could be cognized clearly, as a result of this minuteness. Fog and the aether, both limitless substances, kept everything down. They are the largest substances, which are contained in the total arché-mass, in number, as well as, in size“. (Frag. 1)
Thus, Anaximenes’ aêr, and the aithér (aêr above the clouds; the heavenly space, above the earth’s atmosphere), which is an extension of his arché - later, Aristotle’s fifth element, the quintessence - first separate themselves from the infinite arché-contents, from its infinite number. (Frag. 2) However, the small, or the subdivision of the small into progressive infinitesimalnesses is itself infinite, we can never reach the smallest of all Being. (Frag. 5) But, being a consequent dialectician, Anaxagoras argued similarly, when referring to the „Biggest“ --“but, also concerning the Big, there is always a Bigger one, and, in number, the Big is equivalent to the Small; in reality, everything is infinitely big, as well as infinitely small“. (Frag. 3)
With that Anaxagoras has placed the common conception of "Space" or "Distance" in jeopardy. It follows that the Infinitely Big is related to aêr, in its chthonic dimension (obscurity) and in its heavenly magnitude (clarity). Interesting observations for "Occult Ether Physics"! However, the Infinitely Small, which, of course, is equivalent to the Infinitely-Big, is related to things or thing-seeds, to spermata and homoioméreiai, which are again related to their inherent contradictions: damp-dry, warm-cold, clear-obscure, etc. It is related to the Earth, whereas, e converso, the Infinitely-Big is related to the Above, to the Heavens. (Frag. 4)
In this complex-multiplex mode, trying to explain the mesocosmos and the macrocosmos, forgetting the microcosmos, visibly Anaxagoras illuminated das Sein and das Seiende - esse and ens; later the atomists will develop a more intrasystemic, systematic, universal materialist ontology.
Being (Essence) is not (cannot tolerate) Nothing
Of course, Anaxagoras was diving into profound, most interesting patrian and historic waters, touching transhistoric horizons -- but his slave-owning social order darkened his philosophic vision; hence his Hellenic Dasein (Being-There) could not tolerate his cosmopolitan Sosein (Being-So), and less his transcendental Aussein (Being-Out).
Zenon had „proved” that the Infinitesimal is equivalent to oudén, to nihil, to Nothing, but Anaxagoras maintained that „Being is not (cannot tolerate) Nothing“; (Frag. 3) Against Zenon, he argued that the Small cannot be separated from the Big, they are interrelated (Frag. 5,6,8), and thus the Small cannot disappear in the Nihil. (Frag. 3) Of course, it cannot "disappear" into Nothing, why should it? It can "exappear", can transcend, excel exto the Nihil.
In his words: „The Smallest cannot be, thus, it cannot separate itself, cannot be-for-itself; like in the beginning and now, everything is together“. (Frag. 6) Surely, Everything, Anything, Nothing, etc. are all "together", are all respectively, correspondingly related. Not even „with an axe“, can we „separate warm from cold, or cold from warm“ in the existing homoiomeries. (Frag. 8) Furthermore, „how should hair become from Nothing-Hair, or Meat from Nothing-Meat?“ (Frag. 10) In everything there exists a part of everything else, except, of course, nous, „but, some things also contain nous“, (Frag: 11) for example, Human-Being.
But, how does this hen kai polýs, One and Many, the Big and Small, move, get into motion? What is Being-Becoming for Anaxagoras? To understand him, we have to animate our dialectical (more so, our dialogical) faculties, to relate, to contradict, that is, to think in flowing contradictions, in Above-Below, One-Many, Big-Small, Object-Subject, etc.
Anaxagoras’ point of departure is Empedocles’ original Mixture par excellence. Into this cosmic, objective sýnkrasis, he introduces the nous (subject, spirit, intellect, soul, mind) as deus ex machina, as Aristotle complained, „to account for the formation of the world“. In fact, for everything which he could explain out-of-itself, Anaxagoras gladly put the nous out of action; nous mostly just served to express his ignorance about specific realms of Being.
Definitely, what is of interest in this respect is the fact that nous (einai) comes from without the arche, exto the archaic potpourri, from another extra-universal sphere. In Phaedo, even Plato „discovered that the fellow made no use of nous and assigned to it no causality for the order of the world, but adduced causes like air and aether and water and many other absurdities“. (See: Novack, The Origins ..., pp. 177 - 178)
Nonetheless, realiter, the quintessence, nous, is the motion which Anaxagoras introduced into Being; ipso facto, to become Being-Becoming. Not anánke or tyché, or moíra, is the cause of motion, or motion itself, it is now the nous, a synthesis of Empedocles’ agon-éros. However, the real force which sets diakrisis, „separation“, of elements or things, into motion is not nous, it is „circulation“ or dissemination, which was originally activated by nous.
Nous is the causa efficiens, the winding up of the universal clockwork, but then its own mechanics eternally work for itself, and nous is placed outside Universal-Becoming again. Here we can definitely see that many erudite patrian philosophers have an uncomfortable premonition that there are much more than just universal things; at least, the diverse was already haunting them, and urgently, formal-logically, they had to close up their beloved, closed labour system as tight as possible.
Father Nous, why hast thou forsaken us!
Circulation, mechanical Change, causes the multipled divisions and subdivisions, the omniplex adding and subtracting, the Being-Becoming of things. (Frag. 12) However, like all ancient Greek, decent polis citizens, the Creator, the Master, Nous does not mix, this is Circulation’s job, the work of its universal slave. (Frag. 11, 14). The essence of nous is just „To-Be-in-Being“, as causa sine qua non of Motion. Anaxagoras stated autós épha: „And, when nous had set everything in motion, it separated itself from everything that was in motion“. (Frag. 13)
Nous is like the Heavenly Creator of the Cosmos, who after having seen his miserable creation, did not find it "good" at all, thus forever he abandoned it -- including its sonorous homo homini lupus -- and ever since in all eternity he does not want anything whatsoever to do with it anymore. Together with Jesus Christ, Anaxagoras has taught us to yell in agony: "Father Nous, why hast thou forsaken us?!"
Concerning Being-Becoming and Being-Passing-Away, he remarked: „About Coming-Into-Being and Passing-Away, the Hellenes have no definite opinion. No thing comes into being or passes away, but it mixes itself with existing things and separates itself again from them. Thus, rightly, they should call Coming-Into-Being 'Mixing' and Passing-Away 'Separation'. (Frag. 17)
Hence, nous causes Being-Becoming, but immediately thereafter, circulation, mixing-separating, sýnkrasis-diakrisis, mechanical materialism, takes over. Note: concerning "Motion", "Mixing-Separation" is not necessarily a Spatial-Temporal Category. Later Leucippus and Democritus, and more precisely, Epicurus, would attempt to answer philosophically the ancient puzzling question about material motion, which gave Anaxagoras severe hylozoistic headaches. Of course, until today, the „last word“ has not been stated concerning this cosmic riddle.
Subject and Predicate
In „pre-Socratic“ hylozoism, the differentiation between phýsis and psyché, between antikeímenon and hypokeímenon, was a pure methodological matter, but not an essential or substantial division. In our modern philosophic understanding of Object-Subject, when applied to the naturalism of Thales or Anaxagoras, we surely will not encounter direct correlations. Concerning our topic here, Nous as causa efficiens, whose essence is To-Be-In-Being, can be regarded as the Universal Subject, the anima mundi, the World Spirit. But, this quinta essentia is also the "soul" in all living things, including living human-being. Consequently, for Anaxagoras an individual subject was a philosophic reality.
However, for the ancient Greek philosophers, the philosophic development from an individual to a social subject necessarily necessitated conceptualization and categorization, which were only introduced later by the idealist philosophers, from Socrates to Aristotle. In totality, cum grano salis, ancient Greek philosophy gave a threefold determination to hypokeímenon, to the Subject; psyché qua Nature, qua Individual, qua Society.
As we know, a synonym for Nature (phýsis) was hýle or arché - namely, the original, archaic principle itself. When we would state in modern terminology that Society exists as the Subject of History, Empedocles or Anaxagoras could very well have stated: Phýsis (Nature) as Psyché exists as the Subject of the Cosmos, of which History is an integral material process.
Later Ernst Bloch would re-evaluate this philosophic principle, and declare Nature itself as the Universal Subject, whose process had begun long before the genesis of Man, and that Man was the Substance of this Cosmic Subject. According to him, by means of ciphers, symbols and allegories, Phýsis reveals its material tendency, its telós, towards Man. But, the Universal Subject itself is still in cosmic process, has not-yet-realized itself.
Consequently, the Social Individual Subject, as product of the Universal Subject, still finds itself in Becoming-Being, in latency-tendency towards Everything or Nothing. Surely, according to Bloch, although encircled by immense dangers, it is steering home, to our Heimat, to Home, Sweet Home, wherein as yet nobody ever has been living -- towards Everything.
Furthermore, the individual human-being is the carrier of the general social-being, in other words, of the common, latent Predicate. It is a symbolic indicator that Man-As-Individual has not yet found himself, is not yet himself, as Socio-Historic Universal Subject. Later we will note that Hylozoistic Nature as Universal Subject will be emphasized in Aristotelianism, and will continue to be expounded in this philosophic tradition, across Bruno, Spinoza, Böhme, Baader and Schelling.
Hence, because the Subject itself finds itself in the process of Universal-Becoming, the Predicate, the predication or categorization of this Subject, is still indeterminate, is still indefinite, is still becoming. Aristotle will make the first attempt to develop categories (predicaments) about material reality in flux. Concerning the predicate-conception of phýsis, or even of society or man, the ancient hylozoists still had very little to say - at that degree of philosophic consciousness, the scientific process of relating human and social theorico-praxical existence to the anticipatory essence of Nature was still in its aurorean infancy.
However, referring to Anaxagoras, because the anima mundi or the nous directly exists in individual human beings, as immediate products of phýsis, they, as phýsis-beings, still have the direct, substantial link to Heracleitus’ world lógos, to the objective beauty of Nature.
Thus, if we understand Anaxagoras very well, in individual man, the Truth about the Universal Subject is reflected and reproduced. As Truth it can be socialized, can become historic, can eventually become cognized as Emancipatory Truth. Hence, the dialectical (more precise: dialogical) relation between phýsis-psyché, Object-Subject can determine the Universal Predicate, and therewith the Human Predicate. The sociohistoric key towards the cognition and recognition, towards the actualization, realization and materialization of the above, lies in emancipatory, Human Praxis a n d Theory.
The Janus-Face of the Arché
Now, let us move from thinking, to theorizing, to philosophizing. To use an unscientific, spatial common expression, generally, human "inner" subjectivity stands in contradiction with "outer" objective reality. In the patria, especially in idealism and theology, it seems that the human psyche "contradicts" the universal phýsis. In reality, this is "normal", it is its function to "abstract", to relate, to think. It is of interest to note that the active relation and interrelation between the natural object and the human (social) subject is what Herodotus understood by History.
Of course, this is a multi-relation, including the non-relations of perverse, patrian realities. It is what we understand by the Diagory Nature a n d Society, the process of human emancipatory Creation AND Creativity. Philosophically, for many others, for example, for Ernst Bloch, the obscurity of the Human Subject’s condition, expressed in the statement „I am“, is the genesis and the motor of Human History. And, of course, affirmed, revolutionary Labour against reactionary Capital is the praxical-theoretical dialectical relation between Object and Subject, as expressed in the modern "class struggle".
Returning to our central topic, already in ancient Greek hylozoism, in status nascendi we can trace the two „faces“ of hýle, of Matter: Object and Subject, which later in the Arab and Renaissance materialist philosophy became known as Created Nature and Creative Nature, natura naturata and natura naturans. All the patrian philosophic reflections concerning Above and Below, Inside and Outside, Macrocosmos and Microcosmos, Infinitely-Big and Infinitely-Small, etc., centre around this Object and Subject, around this Praxis-Theory problem and relation.
In fact, the "Marxist" category "Praxis-Theory", materially embedded in historical Human Labour, is intimately bound up to the above Object-Subject Janus-faced Relation and aporia. (See: Burghart Schmidt (Hrsg.), Materialien ..., Artikel von Alfred Jaeger, „Materie und Prozess“ (1969), op. cit., pp. 306-321).
Within this context the various philosophic polemics between Anaxagoras and Zenon are concentrated; they became especially pertinent, when the former categorically stated that the Big cannot be divorced from the Small, and that Being cannot tolerate Nothing, the Nihil. In fact, if Human History is being related to hylozoistic evolution a n d involution, on macrocosmic and microcosmic levels, on finite and transfinite degrees, on universal and multiversal mensions, then the question of the Whither of Human Praxis a n d Theory gains immediate scientific stringency and philosophic pertinency. With the two hylozoistic faces of this ontological problem, we have already occupied ourselves before: Heracleitus’ Being-Becoming and Gorgias’ Nothing.
Anaxagoras stressed the latency of Heracleitus’ Being-Becoming towards Everything, however, he denied the logical, dialectical, more precisely, dialogical tendency towards Nothing. The following is the quintessential problem -- which probably cannot be resolved as yet -- that is not clarified by critical patrian philosophers:
On "Chthón", what is the relative, subjective, revolutionary (not emancipatory) "weight" or appurtenance of the Patrian Social Subject in its Practice and Ideology, in its non-relation to the anima mundi, to the Universal (Not-Poliversal) Subject, to direct the Cosmic-Ontic Labour and Capital Contradictory Process, so-called "History", towards Unified, United Everything (not to Emancipation)?
Even the Philosopher of Hope, Ernst Bloch, left the answer to this transhistoric, transcendental question open, as the experimentum mundi itself!
Furthermore, claiming that the Human Future is still open, and that Everything is still possible - how can this be verified? What if cosmically-ontically Human "History", the Patria, forms part of the perverse inertia towards emancipatory Nothing? Philosophically-scientifically, how can we negate such a "nihilistic" hypothesis? And, why is "Everything" -- A Happy End -- "better" than "ending" up with Nothing?
Finally, what is the universal real difference between Everything and Nothing? What is the trialogical "synthesis" of their related polihistoric, multiversal, polimensional objectives, subjectives and transjectives? Does Man her/himself have the Answer to this poliversal polilemma? Does (s)he form part of this universal objective-subjective predicate, of this Janus-faced Question-Answer? Of even more?
By no means this answering question a n d questioning answer is new! Already ancient Greek hylozoism was battling to give answers to the above questions; in fact, these intellectual efforts form the base of their epistemological reflections about the arché and hýle, about idea and form. All the historic struggles (even some patrian ones) against social chaos, epidemics, illness, senselessness, monotony, alienated disindividualization, class exploitation, social violence, capitalism, fascism, imperialism, nuclear holocaust and terrorism, form part of Human Praxis-Theory against Everything, against omnipotent labour and megalomaniac capital, in nuce, against Alienation - all in the tradition of Heracleitus and Anaxagoras.
Phenomena such as Hylozoism itself, To-Be-Alive, To-Keep-the-Cosmos-and-Man-Alive, Preserving-Universal-Dialectical-Relations of Motion, etc., are patrian cosmic-historic living evidences of the multi-poliversal struggle against All-Powerful Everything, against global, fascist Big Brother, against Orwellian Death. Even in the patrian Universe, that is also a reality, there are emancipatory tendencies and transhistoric latencies towards Neither Everything Nor Nothing, to Nothing.
As we have noticed until now, the Milesians had attempted to discover the substantial source, the arché of everything (not of nothing); in this respect, it is noteworthy that arché connotes both origin and cause. They tried to find this single principle in one or more of the classical four Greek elements of philosophy-chemistry, or even in the limitless stock of arché-stuff, in the apeiron. We have seen, that the ancient hylozoists impossibly could explain scientifically out of one single arché-element the totality of all things, of all transhistoric mensions and spheres.
From Thales to Anaxagoras, fundamentally, the essence of Being has a substantial, material character. That is, between Substance and Essence, they did not differentiate quintessentially. Water, air, apeiron, the flowing river of fire, earth, the sphairos, all four elements, Love and Strife, the thinking substance, nous, mechanical matter; all were material, were related to the earth, they could be grasped physically and intellectually.
Even Xenophanes’ World-Sphere was a replacement of the Olympus, was dense corporeality; also, the immateriality in Pythagoreanism, the number, was still linked to music and bodily forms of things. In Empedocles’ tetratheistic, Cytherean hylozoism, Motion had separated itself as agon-éros from Being-at-Rest, but, it was only active or praxical within the mixing separation of the arché, hence, it was related to matter, to the Cosmos. Anaxagoras' nous, the „thinking substance“ (Windelband), the res cogitans, fills the "space" between the homoiomeries; to do this, it must be material, world-immanent, have a relation to Anaximenes’ aêr, and must explain the world out of itself.
Surely, Nous negates the Democritean void, but it is already located precisely there where it should be materially, as Not-Being or even Not-Yet-Being. As we will see in the next chapters, the atomic materialists will shift Nous as Motion from to kenón, from the void, into Being, into the átomos, as a function of concrete totality per se. Related to Anaximander’s aêr, also to that of Diogenes of Apollonia, the psychic substance of Nous will become pneuma, and later idealistically, it will become a synonym for the ghost, spirit or soul. Diogenes, however, still called it „a huge, powerful, eternal, omniscient body“, but, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle will „emancipate“ nous from its Zoroastrian daeva, from its Ahrimanian malus, from its Plotinian, diabolical material existence.
Furthermore, Heracleitus had defended Becoming-Being and Universal Change, and has explained that the seeming stability of things, that phásis (appearance) as reflected by aísthesis (sense-perception) is only transitory. On the other hand, Eleatism tenaciously claimed that Being alone is real, is the éthymon, and that Becoming-Being is an illusion, a pseudós, a creation of sense-perception.
Realiter, formal-logically, everything is fixed and static, nothing ever happened, nothing is happening, and nothing will ever happen in the Universe; in other words, the Uni-verse is non-related, is a One and Only, is at rest, rests in peace, is dead. Furthermore, Eleatism claimed that only our senses are telling us that we are alive, in fact, we ourselves, including our senses, are just illusions, chimeras, clones, zombies and phantasmagorias. When Labour and Capital eventually have reached their fatal goal, in all probability, this could be the earthly reality of homo sapiens sapiens.
Empedocles and Anaxagoras tried to rescue changing ánthropos, and the changing kosmos, from falling into this Eleatic bottomless, dark abýssos, which tendentially leads to Eternal Everything, to Death; the arché elements are polýs (Many), are eternal and infinite in number, size and variety. Now, Parmenides’ One is in the Many, and the Many is in the One. As such, Anaxagoras tried to explain Coming-into-Existence and Passing-Away of things. Both of them, taught that through cognitive inference, based on real sensuous observation, we can discover real natural processes, even though they cannot be detected by sense-perception.
Anaxagoras even went to the extreme to introduce nous, a universal Subject, which moves and knows everything, which ipso facto is the material Motion of Everything, and the material Cause of Motion of Everything, which is patrian Everything per se. Hence, nous became Ruling Class Man Himself, homo homini lupus, the Cosmic Subject, the active Thinking Substance, the Master, the Crown of Everything. Its concrete, true, total cosmic substratum will become hyle, Matter (see Aristotle, later).
In the following two chapters on Ancient Greek Atomism, we will observe how nous made place for Not-Being, for the void, and became part of the intrinsic material contradiction of Being, became the Blue Shadow of the Universe and of the Azure Multiversal Spheres.
Hence, let us set our sails, and with militant optimism continue our philosophic voyage into the infinite blue ocean of possibilities, in which we can create the conditions of realization of blue infinity, the transsubjective direction and the transobjective destination; thus, surpassing into the transjective "Future", full of emancipatory prolepsis (anticipation) thus negating Orwellian elpis (hope).
As Bloch said, the Cosmic Riddle has not yet solved itself and We ourselves are part of the Solution and the Riddle themselves. Finally, at least, to see Man, Society and History as qualitative-quantitative Matter, and not as a Divine Ghost, to comprehend the world in a multimensional, cognitive manner, and to change and improve material worldly conditions praxico-theoretically, all these patrian-historic universal tasks, in potential latency-tendency date from Milesian hylozoism, and, in particular, from Empedoclean-Anaxagorean panvitalistic naturalism.
Back to Contents Next Chapter