Anaxagoras

Silent Revolutionaries

2005-02-17T08:53:00.000-08:00

The moral of the tale is the power of reason, its decisive influence on the life of humanity. The great conquerors, from Alexander to Caesar, and from Caesar to Napoleon, influenced profoundly the lives of subsequent generations. But the total effect of this influence shrinks to insignificance, if compared to the entire transformation of human habits and human mentality produced by the long line of men of thought from Thales to the present day, men individually powerless, but ultimately rulers of the world. - A. N. Whitehead

Kant's Metaphysical Exposition of Space

2005-02-14T11:20:00.000-08:00

My Metaphysical Exposition of Space Cake
by Anaxagoras

1) “For in order for certain sensations to be related to something outside of me…the representation of space must already be their ground.”[1] When I represent an object as being distinct from me, the concept of being distinct presupposes the idea of objects having diverse spatial location. Likewise, if objects are to be represented as distinct and next to one another, space must be a prerequisite for such a representation to even occur. Therefore, space must be a priori.

2) “Space is a necessary representation, a priori, that is the ground of all outer intuitions”[2] Space is not a property that can be abstracted from an object like that of color, which can be considered merely by ignoring those other properties. Space is rather the presupposition that is necessary for one to consider or intuit any object at all. Consider the following argument:
All things must be in some place. But it is absurd that space should be in some place. Therefore space is not a thing but rather a condition for things to be intuited.

There is a logical distinction between the thing found in space and the space a thing is found in. For example, consider what proposition is prior, “a thing in space” or “the space the thing is to found in?” One can think of nothing in space, but the negation of the later proposition is impossible, i.e. no space for a thing to be found in. Hence, the space the thing is found in is prior. If space were an empirical concept that could be drawn from experience the thing in space would be prior and then space would be derived from the thing. Since space is prior to any empirical sensation and it is both universally valid and necessary for all things to be found in, it is therefore a priori.

A Critique of Argument (1): When the representation of being distinct is presupposed by a representation of space it does not necessarily follow that it is therefore derived from space and that space is a priori. The alternative may be that both representations are correlative and mutually dependent on each other. For example, a representation A could be presupposed by another representation B and not derived from it. In this case it would not follow that A is a priori. Maas argues that assuming the possibility of representations having a mutual dependence on one another, “the concept A could be obtained only by abstraction form the complete concept AB.”[3]

A Critique of Argument (2): It appears impossible to think of space with nothing in it. To represent space apart from the representation of a thing is merely an act of abstraction. An appeal to the Maass argument would suggest that although “we cannot represent the thing (B) without also representing their order of situation (A), we only arrive at the concept of the latter by an act of abstraction from the complete concept (AB).”[4] If space is a priori, it should be possible to speak of space (a priori) without making recourse to empirical things (a posteriori). How can a priori concepts be dependent upon a posteriori representations? Since every argument that Kant makes for the a priori condition of space makes reference to objects of experience, it appears that space is not an a priori condition for things to be intuited, but rather it is mutually dependent on and correlative to empirical objects, thus making space a posteriori.

[1] Paul Guyer, trans. Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge: 1997), B 38.
[2] Paul Guyer, trans. Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge: 1997), A 24.
[3] Henry E. Allison’s, Kant’s Transcendental Idealism (New Haven: 1983), p. 84.
[4] Henry E. Allison, Kant’s Transcendental Idealism (New Haven: 1983), p. 84.

Knockers

2005-02-03T11:43:00.000-08:00

Two days ago Tim and I ran into two really shady guys as we walked home from the bus stop. One individual appeared as if he had just came out of a garbage can. Now this is odd because we live in a really nice area where people don't live in garbage cans. The second individual was an older gentleman about the age of 50 and nicely dressed. The odd thing about this guy was that he was beating a cane into is hand over and over again while he stared me straight in me own eyes. I knew this was trouble. The younger man was going door to door asking for something or other. Our door was next. As I approached our door and the elder man beat his cane at me, the youngerman came up from behind and started talking giberish. With a heavy low-class- gypsy-Irish accent he says, something like, "Is the boss in? Go get the boss for some bop." I realized that he was asking for money from the guy who lived in my house, aka boss. I told him no. But when you wouldn't listen I had to kill him. This is a true story, except for the killing part. However, I did think about the details of the killing as I often think about murdering people who bother me.
P.S. These gypsy guys have been given the proper title - Knockers.

Mein Kampf

2005-01-17T10:30:00.000-08:00

Why God, why? Why should I have the burden of saving traditional Metaphysics from the claws of Modernity? What a heavy cross to bear indeed!
To be continued in a thesis....

Books of the Week

2005-01-13T10:53:00.000-08:00

1. Closing of the American Mind by Allen Bloom
2. The Unity of Philosophical Experience by Etienne Gilson
3.Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant

Site of the Week

2005-01-13T09:40:00.000-08:00

Here is a site that is worthy of checking out:
www. radicalacademy.com.
This site contains tons of Mortimer J. Adler's articles on a variety of different issues within the subject area of philosophy. Please check it out and let me know what you think.
Thank you, Anaxagoras.

Good News

2005-01-11T09:12:00.000-08:00

The good news for this week is:
1. I found out the ultimate sleeping recipe = 2 sleeping pills + 1 tall glass of scotch wiskey.
2. I finally got some sleep.
3. My philosophy department just re-added the recently dropped class on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, which I will attend scrupulously.
4. I just found out that Michael Moore is going straight to hell.
5. My girlfriend is taking a class which includes the study of Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative.
6. I just discovered that I have received pay from my work for the whole time I was on vacation in California.
7. My girlfriend is in love with me.

Story of the Sun

2005-01-10T11:32:00.000-08:00

The sun rises and the sun sets. In day the sun is present and in night it is absent. The sun is the sort of thing that is independent of all us, yet we participate in its warmth when it is present. It is indepentent from us in the fact that the sun will still rise and set whether we be present or not. Thus, the opinion that the sun exists and shines at noon is true not in virtue of my saying so, but rather it is true by virtue of the sun truly existing. If we say that the sun does not exist above us at noon we stand in error. Even if we come together as a society and decided that the sun does not stand above us at noon - we are in error. The truth of the sun is not dependent on me, nor does it depend on any societal decision. Given that all this is correct, why should we expect the case for morality to be different? Why is it so appalling to think that there is a right and a wrong independent of us? How is it closed-minded to think that what is right and wrong is not defined by me or any society, but by the simple fact that such things exist? Is it closed-minded to think that the sun exists whether one likes it or not? It is it closed-minded to say, "you are wrong the sun does shine at noon?" Nay, it is not closed-minded, it is the rational.

Blue Hawaiians

2004-12-23T18:00:00.000-08:00

Well the Blue Hawaiians played last night in Los Angeles at the Lava Lounge. It was another incredible night of music. I was able to talk with the drummer of the band. He reconized me right away and even noticed that my hair had changed. This was a bit strange for me. But maybe not since I have been coming to see the band for over three years. But what was really strange was how nice he was to me. I was given a personally signed piece of art by the man himself. I even thought he was going to invite me over to his house. This was all so puzzling to me since I never really talked to the band members for more than 3 minutes. Then it made perfect sense.... Alex (the drummer) had discovered the beauty of Los Angeles at the Lava Lounge with the help of my old friend "Big-Daddy-V."
From a fellow partner in crime with lots of love,
Anaxagoras.
P.S.
Vitamin V + Lava Lounge + Blue Hawaiians = Happiness

Separation of Church and State

2004-12-14T19:17:00.000-08:00

Maybe someone can help me out with this one.

The Bill of Rights, Amendment I states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So how is it that one gets seperation of Church and State from this amendment? Obviously Amendment I does not even use such words. However, does this amendment say anything even close to seperation of Church and State?

Maybe the seperation of Church in State is found in the prohibiton of making certain laws. How does allowing prayer in schools, refering to God in a Court House, or teaching Intelligent Design along with Darwinian Evolution consitute making a law? Furthermore, if it does, in what way does it respect a certain religion over another? This brings me to my next question, what is the definition of religion anyhow? Lastly, could this amendment by stating that Congress can not make any law respecting an establishment of religion be protecting the Church from Government imposing regulations on religion rather than keeping Church out of Government?

Bowling For Fat Asses

2004-12-13T16:36:00.000-08:00

10 Reasons to Hate Michael Moore
1. He eats too much

2. He commits 59 forms of deceit in his new movie 9/11.

3. He is white (this reason is only for black individuals)

4. He is a liberal and maybe a communist

5. Too many people in Hollywood like him

6. He hates America

7. "Bowling for Columbine" commits almost an equal amount of deceit as his new movie

8. He doesn't know how to argue

9. He likes to lie and thinks lying is a good thing

10. He hates truth

How To Know That You're A Liberal

2004-12-13T16:20:00.000-08:00

10 Reasons to know that you are a liberal

1. You think that the 60's was a good thing.

2. Your a fag

3. You think that opinions matter just as much as evidence

4. You think that "politcal correctness" is actually correct

5. You believe reality is in the mind of the beholder

6. You enjoyed your class in "decontructionism" in college

7. You are a hippy

8. You believe all lifesyles, religions, and world views are equally valid

9. You believe the only real sin is criticizing someone else's views or moral choices

10. You believe in free hand-outs

Anaxagoras

2004-12-09T10:57:00.000-08:00

Anaxagoras (500-428 BCE.)

Anaxagoras was a Greek philosopher of Clazomenae in Asia Minor, born about 500 BCE. Aristotle describes him to have been older than Empedocles, but to come 'after him in his works'. It is not clear whether this means that he wrote later than Empedocles or that he was inferior to him in his achievements. From a noble family, but wishing to devote himself entirely to science, he gave up his property to his relatives, and removed to Athens, where he lived in intimacy with Pericles. Shortly before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War he was charged by the political opponents of Pericles with impiety, that is, with denying the gods recognized by the State. Though acquitted through his friend's influence, he felt compelled to emigrate to Lampsacus, where he died soon after, aged seventy-two. He not only had the honor of giving philosophy a home at Athens, where it flourished for a thousand years, but he was the first philosopher who introduced a spiritual principle which gives matter life and form. He laid down his doctrine in a prose work, "On Nature," written in the Ionic dialect, of which only fragments are preserved.
Like Empedocles, he started from the Parmenidean account of 'what is'. Also like Empedocles, Anaxagoras postulated a plurality of independent elements which he called 'seeds'. They are the ultimate elements of combination and are indivisible, imperishable primordia of infinite number, and differing in shape, color, and taste. Later writers referred to the seeds as omoiomereia (from an expression of Aristotle), meaning particles of like kind with each other and with the whole that is made up of them. They were not, however, the 'four roots', fire, air, earth, and water; on the contrary, these were compounds. Empedocles had supposed that bone, for instance, could be explained as a compound of the elements in a certain proportion, but this did not satisfy Anaxagoras. He pointed out that from bread and water arose hair, veins, 'arteries', flesh, muscles, bones, and the rest, and he asked 'How can hair be made of what is not hair, and flesh of what is not flesh?' (fr. 10). These words read like a direct criticism of Empedocles.
Anaxagoras had been an adherent of 'the philosophy of Anaximines', and he kept as close to it as he could in the details of his cosmology. He could not say that everything was 'air' more or less rarefied or condense, for that view had been destroyed by Parmenides. If the world was to be explained at all, an original plurality must be admitted. He therefore substituted for the primary 'air' a state of the world in which 'all things were together, infinite both in quantity and in smallness' (fr. 1). This is explained to mean that the original mass was infinitely divisible, but that, however far division was carried, every part of it would still contain all 'things', and would in that respect be just like the whole. That is the very opposite of the doctrine of 'elements', which seems to be expressly denied by the dictum that 'the things that are in one world are not separated from one another or cut off with a hatchet' (fr. 8). Everything has 'portions' of everything else in it.
But if that were all, we should be no nearer an explanation of the world than before; for there would be nothing to distinguish one 'seed' from another. The answer to this is that, though each thing has a 'portion' of everything in it, however minutely it may be divided, some have more of one thing and others more of another. This was to be seen already in the original undifferentiated mass where 'all things were together'; for there the portions of air and 'aether' (by which words Anaxagoras means fire) were far more numerous than the others, and therefore the whole had the appearance of air and 'aether'. Anaxagoras could not say it actually was air, as Anaximenes had done, because he had discovered for himself or learned from Empedocles the separate corporeal existence of atmospheric air. We have some references to the experiments by which he demonstrated this. He used inflated skins for the purpose. The effort to depart as little as possible from the doctrine of Anaximenes is nevertheless apparent.
We see, then, that the differences which exist in the world as we know it are to be explained by the varying proportions in which the portions are mingled. 'Everything is called that of which it has most in it', though, as a matter of fact, it has everything in it. Snow, for instance, is black as well as white, but we call it white because the white so far exceeds the black. As was natural, the 'things' Anaxagoras chiefly thought of as contained in each 'seed' were the traditional opposites, hot and cold, wet and dry, and so forth. It is of these he is expressly speaking when he says that 'the things in one world are not cut off from one another with a hatchet' (fr. 8). Empedocles had made each of these four opposites a 'root' by itself; each of the 'seeds' of Anaxagoras contains them all. In this way he thought he could explain nutrition and growth; for it is clear that the product of a number of 'seeds' might present quite a different proportion of the opposites than any one of them if they were taken severally.
The other problem, that of the source of motion, still remains. How are we to pass from the state of the world when all things were together to the manifold reality we know? Like Empedocles, Anaxagoras looked to the microcosm for a suggestion as to the source of motion, but he found one such source sufficient for his purpose. He called it Mind (nous) -- pure, passionless reason. It is the source of motion as well as of knowledge in us. He did not, however, succeed in forming the conception of an incorporeal force. Mind, as the cause of motion, is a sort of 'fluid'. It is 'the thinnest of all things' (fr. 12), and, above all, it is 'unmixed', that is to say, it has no portions of other things in it, and this is what gives it the 'mastery', that is, the power both of knowing and of moving other things. Further, it enters into some things and not into others, and that explains the distinction between the animate and the inanimate. At first the seeds lay mingled without order; but nous set the unarranged matter into motion, and thereby created out of chaos an orderly world. The way in which it separates and orders things is by producing a rotatory motion, which begins at the center and spreads further and further. That is really all Anaxagoras had to say about it. Like a true Ionian he tried to give a mechanical explanation of everything he could, and, when once he had got the rotatory motion started, he could leave that to order the rest of the world.
Though Empedocles had distinguished Love and Strife as the causes of mixture and separation from the four elements which are mixed and separated, he continued to call them all 'gods' in the sense with which we are now familiar, and he gave the name also to the Sphere in which they were all mixed together. Anaxagoras seems to have taken the stop of calling only the source of motion 'god'. In that sense and to that extent it is not incorrect to call him the founder of theism. On the other hand, it seems to have been precisely for this that his contemporaries called him an atheist. In his desire to exalt Nous, he seems to have followed the lead of Xenophanes in denying the divinity of everything else, and his statements about the sun and the moon are usually mentioned in connection with the charge of irreligion brought against him, though we cannot tell now what that referred to, or whether the charge was well founded or not. We can only say that Pericles shared the secular spirit of the Ionians, and it is quite conceivable that his immediate circle may have offended the religious susceptibilities of old-fashioned Athenians by ridiculing ceremonies which were still sacred in their eyes.

IEP

© 1996