Page images



imenes. Hence, it is merely the highest kind of matter and, consequently, not absolutely opposed to it as in spiritualism proper. The dualistic conception is, as yet, only vaguely defined in the system of Anaxagoras, who finds it hard to cut loose from the raaterialism of the physicists. This is evident from the fact that Archelaus, his disciple, considers the vous as the finest kind of matter. Moreover, Anaxagoras himself fails to apply the notion of finality and his principle that the prime mover is an intelligenu being. Aristotle justly censures him for using mind as a deus ex machina to account for the movement of matter, and then wholly abandoning it for physical and mechanical causes as soon as it has served his purpose in explaining the origin of the first movement.?

Nevertheless, Anaxagoras went far enough in spiritual ism to cause a reaction in Ionian physics, which became decidedly materialistic in consequence of this opposition.

§ 12. Diogenes of Apollonia, Archelaus, Leucippus,

Democritus 1. DIOGENES of Apollonia : rejects both the pluralism of elements and the dualism of unintelligent matter and immaterial intelligence. He is a disciple of Anaximenes, and assumes only one original element, air, which is the source of all life in nature, and the essence of all bodies. Mind, which Anaxagoras seems to regard as a separate

i lhus Aristotle finds fault with Anaxagoras for identifying vous with puxń though pretending to distinguish between them (De anima, I., 2). ? Aristotle, Met., I., 4, 7. Cf., Plato, Phallo, 97 B.

Simplicius, In Phys., 32, 33 ; Diog. L., IX. ; [Fragments, coll. by Schorn, Bonn, 1829]; Mullach, I., pp. 252 ff. : [Ritter and Preller, pp. 172 ff.; Burnet, pp. 361 f.; Schleiermacher, Veber Diogenes von A pollonia (Works, part III., vol. 2, Berlin, 1838); Panzerbieter, De Diog A. vita et scriptis, Meiningen, 1823. - TR.).

[ocr errors]

principle, is wholly dependent on air. This is proved by the fact that the spirit leaves the body as soon as the breath is taken away. Hence we cannot say that air is the product of mind or thought; nay, the reverse is true, mind is the product of air. Without air there can be no life, no consciousness, no intelligence; hence air, that is, matter, is the only principle. Intelligence is not a distinct substance, but an attribute of air. It is obvious, says Dio

, genes, that the principle we assume is both great and mighty and eternal and undying and of great knowledge (μέγα και ισχυρόν και αίδιόν τε και αθάνατον και πολλά eięós). It is the opinion of this physicist, whose views

). are closely akin to those of Melissus and the Eleatics, that dualism is the negation of the fundamental principle of science (évòs amavta). I believe, he goes on to say, that all things are differentiations of the same thing, and are the same thing; and this seems obvious to me.

How, indeed, could the so-called elements, earth, water, air, etc., mix with one another, if they were not fundamentally the same? How could they help or harm each other? How could the earth produce plants, and plants animals ? Let us therefore confess, with the ancient physicists, that all things arise from the same substance, and are destined to return to the same thing.1

2. ARCHELAUS.? — Archelaus of Athens, or, according to others, of Miletus, is a disciple of Anaxagoras. He adheres to his teacher's atomism, but protests against the dualistic interpretation of his system. The voûs is a separate thing like water, gold, and iron. It differs from these substances as these substances differ among themselves. Gold is not iron, but iron and gold are both matter. So, too, mind, though neither gold nor iron, is, nevertheless, 1 Mullach, p. 254. [Ritter and Preller, p. 173.)

Diog. L., II. ; Simpl., In Arist. Phys., fol. 6 ; [Ritter and Preller, pp. 178; Mullach, 1, pp. 257 ff.; Burnet, pp. 367 ff.).


material; it is the finest, the most subtle, the most intan. gible substance, without, lowever, being a simple thing. A simple substance is a substance that is composed of nothing, and consequently does not exist. Matter and substance are, therefore, synonymous terms.

3. THE ATOMISTS. - That is also, on the whole, the teaching of Leucippus and his disciple, Democritus of Abdera, in Thrace, the most learned of the Ionian physicists and the head of the ancient and modern materialistici school (420 B.C.). His numerous writings have been lost, but important fragments remain. Besides, direct sources being wanting, we may refer to the exposition of atomistic principles in the poem of Lucretius.? The somewhat vague doctrines of Anaximenes, Dio

, genes, and Anaxagoras, on the nature and organization of matter, are clearly formulated by Democritus.3 With Anaximenes and Diogenes, he affirms the homogeneity of all bodies; but, with Anaxagoras, he conceives this indeterminate matter as divided into an infinite number of infinitely small molecules, which come together and separate. In that way bodies are formed and destroyed. These molecules are infinite in number and indivisible (ätoua), without, however, being mathematical points, for an unextended thing would be nothing. They are identical in chemical quality (yÉvos év), but differ in size (uéryedos) and form (oxîua)They are endowed with per: petual motion, which they do not receive from a transcendent principle, but which belongs to their essence. The force which moves them acts according to necessity (καθ' ειμαρμένη υπ' ανάγκης), and not, as Anaxagoras seems to think, according to design (volls) and purpose (TÉLos). Democritus rejects all teleology, but dlenies chance also, though he sometimes employs the word túxn in the sense of necessity (aváyın). According to him, the wor “ chance” merely expresses man's ignorance of the real causes of phenomena. Nothing in nature happens without cause; all things have their reason and necessity.)

1 We say materialistic, and not atomistic. For atomism is as old as Anaxagoras and his theory of the χρήματα άπειρα και πλήθος και σμικρόmnta, in fact if not in name.

2 [De natura rerum, ed. by Lachmann (1850), Bernays (1852), Munro, with Eng. tr. (1886). See Masson, The Atomic Theory of Lucretius, London, 1884. — Tr.]

8 Aristotle, Met., I., 4; De cælo, III., 2; De anima, I., 2; Sext. Emp., Adv. math., VII., 135; Diog. L., IX. ; Lucretius, De rerum natura ; Clem. of Alex., Stromaleis ; Mullach, I., pp. 330 ff. ; Ritter and Preller, pp. 154 ff.; [Liard, De Democrito philosopho, Paris, 1873; Brieger, Die Urbewegung der Atome, Halle, 1884; Natorp, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Erkenntnissproblems im Alterthum, Berlin, 1884; Liepmann, Die Mechanik der Leucipp-Demokritschen Atome, Leipsic, 1885; Hart, Zur Seelen- und Erkenntnisslehre des Demokrit, Mülhausen 1886 ; Natorp, Die Ethika des Demokritos, Marburg, 1893. — Tr.).

The Eleatics denied the void and consequently motion. To assume movement is equivalent to affirming the void (Kevov). If there were no void, the atoms could not (το κενόν even be distinguished from one another; that is to say, they could not exist. Hence the void is the indispensable condition of their existence. It is also the condition of movement, and therefore as important in the formation of things as the full (Tlîpes). The void is, as it were, a second principle, which is added to the matter of materialism, and gives the system of Democritus the dualistic turn which the most consistent monistic philosophies have not been able wholly to avoid. The void of Democritus meets us under the name of ärtelpov in Pythagoras; it is the unov of Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus, the negativity of Campanella and of Hegel. Democritus regards it as the condition of motion and of matter; the idealists regard it as the condition of the dialectical movement of thought.

The perpetual motion (àíêlos kívnois) produces a whirl

1 Stobæus, Ecl. phys., p. 160; Mullach, p. 365: Oudėv xpñua párna γίνεται, αλλά πάντα εκ λόγου και υπ' ανάγκης.

Ing movement (Sivos) among the atoms, in consequence of which they are combined according to their external affinities, – that is, according to size and form; for since they are all chemically the same, they neither attract nor repel each other. The heaviest atoms naturally move downwards in infinite space, while the lightest form the atmosphere. Some atoms have uneven, rough, sharp, or hooked surfaces. These catch hold of each other and form acid or bitter substances; while atoms with smooth surfaces form substances which impress the senses agreeably. The soul consists of the finest, smoothest, and therefore most nimble atoms. When such atoms exist in isolation, or are mixed together in small quantities, the soul-atoms are insensible; when they are joined together in large masses, they acquire the faculty of sensation. They are scattered over the en: tire body, but gathered together more numerously in the sense-organs, where sensation is produced: in the brain, the seat of thought; in the heart, the seat of the affections; and in the liver, the seat of desire. Sensation and perception are explained as follows: Effluences (atroppolai) go forth from all bodies and enter our organs of sense, where they excite sensation, and the brain, where they produce ideas or images of things (eiewa).

Sensation is the only source of knowledge, and there is nothing in thought that has not passed through the channel of the senses. Our ideas represent our impressions, that is, the relations existing between ourselves and the external world; they are not direct reproductions of the objects themselves, the inner essence of which is concealed from us. We are self-conscious as long as the soul-atoms remain intact in the body; sleep ensues, and with it loss of consciousness, when a certain number of atoms escape; when nearly all of them escape, and but a few remain, we fall into a state of seeming death; and, finally, when all the psychical atoms are separated from the body at once, we

« PreviousContinue »