Scribes: John
Kohler and Thomas
Narsingh
These
minutes were spoken on 28 September; for another version,
Class began with Professor
Hutchinson addressing a question posed by a student. The student wanted to know the distinction between the
cosmos and the universe. This was an important
question since these terms were used of by many of the ancient
philosophers. Hutchinson began his
response by first considering the definition of universe. In hopes to clarify its exact meaning,
he mentioned the “unicycle”.
By definition, a unicycle has and only can have one wheel. In the same way the universe can only
be singular. The two words share
the prefix “uni” which identifies singularity; hence, there cannot
be numerous universes.
Furthermore, universe is associated
with totality and related with the Greek word “pan” meaning
“the all”.
“Pan” is used as a prefix in English words such as pandemic,
which means something pertaining to all people. The significance of the prefix “pan” in pandemic
is made explicit in contrast to the word, epidemic, which is defined as
something localized, and therefore, does not pertain to all people. This can also be seen in the word
panorama meaning to see all around.
Thus, universe is necessarily one thing that is all encompassing.
Next, Hutchinson considered the
definition of cosmos. Words like
cosmetics, having to do with the idea of arrangement or adornment, are related
to it. Cosmos is defined as an arranged
part of the whole. Hence, we can
think of the stars, the earth and moon (which in part make up a cosmos) as an
arranged part of the whole universe.
Ancient Philosophers were divided between the ideas of many cosmos or
one cosmos.
To identify and clarify primary and
secondary sources, Hutchinson compared fragments and testimonies. The class’s attention was
directed to fragments 11 to 16, Pg127 of our text. The fragments in this book were writings believed to
originate from the particular ancient philosopher they were attributed to. Fragments 11 to 16 have been translated
from Greek, pieced together by Simplicius and ultimately originated from
Anaxagoras.
Ancient scholars work with fragments because no texts from
the Ancient world have survived.
Texts were originally hand copied from various media onto other media
(e.g. wood or scrolls). The only
texts that survived were copies of copies. What inevitably occurred was that the older transcripts
perished while the younger ones survived.
Over time, many manuscripts of the same text would emerge, providing
modern scholars with the problem of trying to establish the manuscript closest
to the original writings.
An example of a primary source was
T6 from Aristotle’s work.
His work was copied countless times into the Medieval Period where
eventually scholars produced his work in books. This passage is referred to as a testimony because it is
Aristotle’s commentary on the fragments of Anaxagoras. Hutchinson pointed out that even though
T6 is considered an accurate account of Aristotle, whether this is an accurate
account of Anaxagoras is debatable.
Hutchinson used an example from Pg.
118 and 119 to address secondary sources.
He said that Waterfield, who wrote these pages, is a recent scholar
whose interpretation of Anaxgoras is disputable and not factual. Primary evidence is most important in
considering these works. One must
ask what the antiquity of these works is.
Furthermore, when writing position papers students are to use ancient evidence
and not primary evidence. That is,
rely on primary sources and not secondary sources.
Prof.
Hutchinson corrected the raison, rice pudding analogy used to explain
Epicurus’s cosmology in the minutes taken by the Sept. 24 speaking
scribes. The speaking
scribes denoted that the rice pudding was scattered. However, Hutchinson stated that the rice pudding
(representing the universe) actually extends indefinitely, while the raisins
(representing the cosmos) are scattered.
A student asked the question
‘what are we supposed to cite?’. Hutchinson answered that he was not concerned about the
direct method or if one chooses to use exact form. However, his concern was that every passage used, is cited
accurately relative to the text.
An accurate citation would provide an audience with enough information
about the reference material for a second person to be able to find the exact
source in a Library catalogue. For
example, if one chose to cite T6 from Pg. 126,127, one would begin by stating
the author, Aristotle; then the work, Physics; then the line reference,
translator (Waterfield) and the title of the Waterfield’s book, The
First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists. The general idea is that you are
stating where you found the reference in a practical fashion. There are different functions for
citation. One is to indicate that
the author is not plagiarizing. At
this academic level, the more significant function is to let your audience know
how to get a hold of the material referenced.
It
is important to be reminded here that Ancient writings were never printed or
written in books. At the time,
scrolls were used and the book structure did not appear until the late ancient
period. Scholars would not be able
to use page numbers to reference each other to different passages in a work,
making page numbers irrelevant to ancient texts. Instead, they referred to a place in a text relative to how
close the passage was to the beginning or end. Many of the Ancient Authors used a personal, though
consistent, referencing method.
Plato, for instance, used a different method than Aristotle. The principle is to approach and
reference the ancient thinkers’ texts the same way one would approach and
reference the books in the Bible.
They are not referenced by page, but instead by book, chapter, and
verse. This is a subtle point, but
one that any good scholar or student of Ancient Philosophy must take into
consideration. The exercise of
citing the ancient texts serves a particular purpose. It gives the student experience working with particular
evidence and helps him or her understand the significance of the ancient
texts. The exercise of composing a
position paper and referencing a passage or idea poses questions relevant to
humanity scholarship, such as ‘what is a text?’.
The
life span of Anaxagoras is unclear.
It is believed that he was born roughly during the year, 500 BCE, and
died either, 425 or 428 BCE. He
lived a relatively long life of 70 years or so. He originated from Clazomenae and came to Athens in 480 BCE,
where he stayed for 40 years.
During
Anaxagoras’ life, Greece was attacked by Persia (Ancient Persia is
present day Turkey). In the
initial stages of the attack, an Athenian soldier ran 26 miles from the
community of Marathon to Athens to warn his people of the attack. Due to this great act of heroism and
endurance, the Athenians were able to respond to the attack by leading the
Greek military to a victory, repelling the Persians. Not surprisingly, the term “marathon”, as we use
it today, originated out of this remarkable example of athleticism by the
Athenian soldier.
As
a result of the Athenians largely leading the Greek victory, Athens’s
status in Greek society was elevated.
The neighboring states developed respect for Athens and desired to
become military allies and trade partners. They eventually paid tributes in return for Athens’s
military protection and maintained an alliance similar to that of the NATO agreement. However,
between 480 and 445 BCE, Athens experienced sudden
prosperity and trade. Anaxagoras
would have benefited from this period of prosperity since he was friends with
the well known Athenian statesman Pericles. Pericles was a leader during this most successful period of
the Athenian republic. He is
recalled as a successful and wise politician, who was trusted intimately by
many. It is a significant point
that even in the beginning of Athens’ influence as an intellectual
center, the first world leader of Athens had a philosopher at his side (Anaxagoras).
Anaxagoras
was put on trial (in 430 BCE) during his long lasting friendship with
Pericles. He was accused of
impiety and Atheism. For example,
he stated that the sun was actually a hot stone while the people of Athens
believed that the sun was a divine entity. However, Hutchinson was convinced that there were different
underlying political motives for these accusations due to the fact that
Anaxagoras was friends with the leader of Athens, Pericles. Hence, it is likely that the trial was
an intended attack against Pericles’s power and position. Hutchinson noted that this was likely a
similar situation for Socrates insofar as the accusations of his trial (in
399BCE) had little to do with his execution.
Anaxagoras’s
main philosophical interest was a cosmogony that was similar in content to the
Milesians (in particular, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Xenophanes). He associated with the most literate
and wealthy people of the literate world.
Also, he was among the first thinkers to initiate the great intellectual
and philosophical movement in Athens which was to last one thousand years.
Hutchinson highlighted some of
Anaxagoras’s thoughts concerning his cosmogony: the moon shines because
of the sun’s illumination (F17); Anaxagoras understood rainbows to be
caused by the sun shinning on the clouds (F18); earthquakes were caused by
aither (T8); the sun was a fiery stone (T9); meteorites moved beneath the
heavenly bodies (T9); the sun was larger than Peloponnese (T9). Anaxagoras also addressed eclipses
(T9), comets (T10), and the Milky Way (T11). Furthermore, he stated that plants are alive and feel
sensations (T12). He expanded on
Anaximander’s theory of animal evolution and generation (T13). He had a theory about embryology,
stating that the fetus is fed through the navel (T15). Moreover, he provided an explanation
for perception and sensation (T16).
Thus, Anaxagoras addressed many of the same issues as the Milesians in
his cosmogony.
Hutchinson
then went on to explain Anaxagoras’s theory of separation. Anaxagoras stated that a process of
separation occurred whereby air, water, and earth were divided. The separation came as a result of
vortexes forcing a dispersal of heavier things from lighter things. Two new ideas resulted from
Anaxagoras’s cosmogony.
First, there was the idea of the vortex and spinning phenomena that
powered the separation. Second,
there was the profound idea that there were no infinitely small parts. The implications of this idea were that
the separation of elements would never be complete.
The
tradition of earlier philosophers held the belief that there was one original
being, which was then separated into fire, earth, water, air, animals, and
plants. Hutchinson declared that
Anaxagoras, in his cosmogony, was likely replying to Zeno, and certainly
Parmenides, because he questioned their belief of basic elements by questioning
the logic of how something could come into existence that did not already
exist. The traditional
philosophers of Anaxagoras’s time envisioned a handful of elements (four
or five) used to create complex beings that make up the physical realm. They proposed that if we have knowledge
of the plants, animals, and other complex things then we must also have
knowledge of the element that they are made up of. However, Parminedes stated (and Zeno agreed), if there is
knowledge, it must be of reality, which cannot change. Therefore, since the complex things do
change, we cannot have knowledge of them, and the elements, which do not
change, are knowable and cannot come into in the same physical realm. Parminedes’ theory relies on the
existence of basic elements, and their existence is not explained.
Anaxagoras
stated that there are no smallest parts to satisfy his cosmogony that did not
allow for something to come into existence that did not already exist. He
proposed that there are no new things in the world, just rearrangements. Thus, the transition from being to
non-being is not an issue because the idea of infinitely small parts allows for
everything to be a part of everything else. This answered many problems, but the method relies on the
existence of a vortex. It relies
on the motion in space, which remained unexplained in Anaxagoras’ cosmogony.
Anaxagoras’s
idea about a seed clearly shows his belief that it is impossible for being to
originate out of non-being. His
conception of a seed is dependent upon his idea of infinitely small parts. As a result, it is possible to have
infinitely many parts in a finite object, the seed. Moreover, he believed eating bread contributed to hair
growth because the substance that hair is made of is present in the bread. Anaxagoras saw this theory as only
consistent with the idea of infinitely small parts. This ancient idea is remarkably similar to modern theories
about proteins and organic compounds, which are used as our bodies’
building blocks. The concept of
infinitely small parts is contrasted with Democritus’ idea of atoms and
least parts. Hutchinson added that although Anaxagoras’ idea was a guess,
it was a fruitful one. The transformation of the world was explained without
the use of real creation.
Professor Hutchinson then quoted from fragment five (Pg.122) and explained that Anaxagoras believed the vast universe was unlimited in complexity. This great thinker saw no reason why the forces that separated this universe could not have occurred in another place in the universe. Hence, suggesting the idea of many cosmos. This idea is currently being considered in modern science as a valid theory.