Anaxagoras · Philosophy
Anaxagoras belonged to the great generation that answered Parmenides’ proof that change is impossible. By accepting eternal, uncreated ingredients and explaining all change as their mixing and separating, he saved the changing world while honouring ‘nothing comes from nothing.’
To understand Anaxagoras’ physics, you must first feel the crisis it answers. A generation earlier, Parmenides of Elea had constructed an argument of unprecedented rigour that seemed to prove the impossible: that change cannot happen. His reasoning ran like this. For something to come into being, it must come from what-is-not (since if it already was, it would not need to come to be). But ‘what-is-not’ is nothing - and from nothing, nothing can come; indeed, ‘what-is-not’ cannot even be thought or spoken of, for to think is always to think of something that is. Therefore nothing ever truly comes into being or passes away. Being simply is - ungenerated, imperishable, whole, unchanging, one. The whole world of change, growth, and decay that our senses report is, Parmenides concluded, a deception; reason proves it impossible.
This was a catastrophe for natural philosophy. The Milesians had studied a changing nature - water becoming ice, the cosmos forming, things coming to be and perishing. If Parmenides was right, there was no such nature to study; change was an illusion, and physics was a science of nothing. Every serious thinker after Parmenides had to reckon with him. You could not simply ignore the argument, because its logic seemed airtight - and its core principle, that nothing comes from nothing, was one that the natural philosophers themselves accepted. The challenge was excruciating: how do you save the obvious reality of change without violating the principle that nothing comes from nothing - the very principle Parmenides used to abolish change?
Anaxagoras was not alone in this rescue operation. He belongs to a whole generation of thinkers - the pluralists - who answered Parmenides by the same essential strategy, differing only in its details. Parmenides had argued that Being is one, undifferentiated, and unchanging. The pluralists granted him that each fundamental thing has the character of Parmenidean being - eternal, uncreated, imperishable - but denied that there is only one such being. Instead there are many: a plurality of eternal, unchanging fundamental entities, and change is their rearrangement.
For Empedocles, the many eternal beings are the four roots - earth, water, air, fire - which never come to be or perish but are eternally combined and separated by the forces of Love and Strife; all change is their mixing in different proportions (bone is so much earth, so much fire, and so on). For the atomists (Leucippus and Democritus), the many eternal beings are the infinite atoms - indivisible, unchanging particles moving in the void - and all change is their rearrangement, their coming together and flying apart. For Anaxagoras, the many eternal beings are the infinite stuffs and qualities, a portion of everything present in everything, and change is the shifting of their proportions by mixing and separating. The pattern is identical: save Parmenidean being at the level of the fundamental constituents, and explain all change as their recombination. This is one of the most important and lasting strategies in the history of thought. It is, in fact, the basic shape of modern physics: fundamental, conserved entities (particles, fields, energy) that are never created or destroyed, and a world of change explained entirely as their rearrangement. The pluralists, answering Parmenides, invented the form of physical explanation we still use.
The encounter between Parmenides and the pluralists, in which Anaxagoras played a central part, is one of the foundational episodes in the history of science - for it is where physics learned the very form of how to explain change. Before Parmenides, change was simply taken for granted; the Milesians described it without deeply analysing what it is. Parmenides forced the analysis by arguing that change, taken as the creation of new being, is impossible. The pluralists’ response did not refute Parmenides so much as refine the concept of change itself: they showed that change need not be understood as creation ex nihilo, and that it can instead be understood as the conservative rearrangement of eternal fundamentals. This refinement is permanent. We no longer think of a fire as creating heat and ash from nothing, or of digestion as creating flesh; we think of conserved atoms and energy being rearranged. That conceptual shift - from change-as-creation to change-as-rearrangement-of-the-conserved - is the pluralists’ gift, and Anaxagoras was one of its principal authors.
This is why the abstract-seeming quarrel between Parmenides and his successors deserves to be seen as the birth of a scientific worldview, not just a clash of metaphysical dogmas. Parmenides supplied the indispensable constraint - nothing comes from nothing, the demand that explanation conserve being - which forbids the lazy ‘explanation’ that things just pop into and out of existence. The pluralists supplied the indispensable insight - change is recombination of conserved constituents - which lets us honour that constraint while still studying a genuinely changing world. Together they define the framework within which all of physics and chemistry operate: a world of conserved fundamentals, never created or destroyed, whose endless rearrangement is the changing world of experience. Anaxagoras’ slogan - that the Greeks are wrong to speak of coming-to-be and passing-away, when there is really only mixture and separation - is, in the deepest sense, the motto of the science that followed. He taught us to see the river of change as the dance of the conserved.
This is the opening of the lesson. The rest — the dialogue, the primary source, and the recall — is in the app.
You learned how Anaxagoras answered Parmenides: he accepted that nothing comes from nothing (so the basic ingredients are eternal and uncreated), but saved real change by recasting it as the mixing and separating of those conserved ingredients. Explain how this rescues change from Parmenides’ proof of its impossibilit…
Leads to Parmenides.
Begin this lesson →epoché — a humanities education that remembers you.