[989b]
[1]
but
especially since (a) it follows that things must have existed
previously in an unmixed state; (b) it is contrary to nature for
anything to mix with anything ; (c)
moreover affections and attributes would then be separable from their
substances (because what is mixed can also be separated). At the same
time, if one were to follow his doctrine carefully and interpret its
meaning, perhaps it would be seen to be more up-to-date;because when nothing was yet
differentiated, obviously nothing could be truly predicated of that
substance—e.g. that it was white or black or buff or any
other color. It must necessarily have been colorless, since otherwise
it would have had one of these colors.Similarly by the same argument it had no taste
or any other such attribute; for it cannot have had any quality or
magnitude or individuality. Otherwise some particular form would have
belonged to it; but this is impossible on the assumption that
everything was mixed together, for then the form would have been
already differentiated, whereas he says that everything was mixed
together except Mind, which alone was pure and unmixed.1It follows from this that he
recognizes as principles the One (which is simple and unmixed) and the
Other, which is such as we suppose the Indeterminate to be before it
is determined and partakes of some form. Thus his account is neither
correct nor clear,
[20]
but his
meaning approximates to more recent theories and what is now more
obviously true.However, these thinkers are really
concerned only with the theories of generation and destruction and
motion (for in general it is only with reference to this aspect of
reality that they look for their principles and causes).Those, however, who make their
study cover the whole of reality, and who distinguish between sensible
and non-sensible objects, clearly give their attention to both kinds;
hence in their case we may consider at greater length what
contributions, valuable or otherwise, they make to the inquiry which
is now before us.The so-called Pythagoreans employ
abstruser principles and elements than the physicists. The reason is
that they did not draw them from the sensible world; for mathematical
objects, apart from those which are connected with astronomy, are
devoid of motion.Nevertheless all their discussions and investigations are concerned
with the physical world. They account for the generation of the
sensible universe,
1 Anaxagoras. Fr. 12 (Diels).
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.