 Section 10 of Early Greek Philosophy and Other Essays by Friedrich Nietzsche. This Libra Box recording is in the public domain. Section 10, Philosophy during the Tragic Age of the Greeks. Part 4. 9. Whereas in every word Heraclitus are expressed the pride and the majesty of truth, but of truth caught by intuitions, not scaled by the rope ladder of logic. Whereas in sublime ecstasy he beholds but does not aspire, discerns but does not reckon, he is contrasted with his contemporary parmenides. A man likewise with the type of a prophet of truth, but formed as it were out of ice and not out of fire, and shedding around himself cold, piercing light. Parmenides once had probably in his later years a moment of the very purest abstraction undimmed by any reality perfectly lifeless. This moment, ungreak like no other in the two centuries of the Tragic Age, the product of which is the doctrine of being, became a boundary stone for his own life, which divided it into two periods. At the same time, however, the same moment divides the pre-socratic thinking into two halves of which the first might be called the Anaximandrian, the second the Parmenidian. The first period in Parmenides' own philosophizing bears still the signature of Anaximander. This period produced a detailed philosophic physical system as answer to Anaximander's questions. When later that icy abstraction horror caught him and the simplest proposition treating of being and not being was advanced by him, then among the many older doctrines thrown by him upon the scrap heap was also his own system. However, he does not appear to have lost all paternal piety towards the strong and well-shapen child of his youth, and he saved himself, therefore, by saying it is true there is only one right way. If one, however, wants at any time to take oneself to another, then my earlier opinion, according to its purity and consequence alone, is right. Sheltering himself with this phrase, he has allowed his former physical system a worthy and extensive space in his great poem On Nature, which really was to proclaim the new discernment as the only signpost to truth. This bodily regard, even though an error should have crept in through it, is a remainder of human feeling in a nature quite petrified by logical rigidity and almost changed into a thinking machine. Parmenides, whose personal intercourse with Anaximander does not seem incredible to me and whose starting from Anaximander's doctrine is not only credible but evident, had the same distress for the complete separation of a world which only is and a world which only becomes, as had also caught Heraclitus and led to a denying of being altogether. Both sought a way out from that contrast and divergence of a dual order of the world, that leap into the indefinite, indefinable by which, once for all, Anaximander had escaped from the realm of becoming, and from the empirically given qualities of such realm, that leap did not become an easy matter to mine so independently fashioned as those of Heraclitus and Parmenides. First, they endeavored to walk as far as they could and reserve to themselves the leap for that place where the foot finds no more hold and one has to leap in order not to fall. Both looked repeatedly at that very world which Anaximander had condemned in so melancholy a way and declared to be the place of want and crime, and at the same time the penitentiary sell for the injustice of becoming. Contemplating this world, Heraclitus, as we know already, had discovered what a wonderful order, regularity and security manifest themselves in every becoming. From that he concluded that the becoming could not be anything evil and unjust, quite a different outlook had Parmenides. He compared the qualities one with another and believed that they were not all of the same kind but ought to be classified under two headings. If, for example, he compared bright and dark, then the second quality was obviously only the negation of the first, and thus he distinguished positive and negative qualities seriously endeavoring to rediscover and register that fundamental antithesis in the whole realm of nature. His method was the following. He took a few antithesis, for example, light and heavy, rare and dense, active and passive, and compared them with that typical antithesis of bright and dark, that which corresponded with the bright was the positive, that which corresponded with the dark the negative quality. If he took perhaps the heavy and light, the light fell on the side of the bright, the heavy on the side of the dark and thus heavy was to him only the negation of light, but the light a positive quality. This method alone shows that he had a defiant aptitude for abstract logical procedure closed against the suggestions of the senses. The heavy seems indeed to offer itself very forcibly to the senses as a positive quality that did not keep parmenides from stamping it as a negation. Similarly, he placed the earth in opposition to the fire, the cold in opposition to the warm, the dense in opposition to the rare, the female in opposition to the male, the passive in opposition to the active, merely as negations, so that before his gaze, our empirical world divided itself into two separate spheres into that of the positive qualities with a bright, fiery, warm, light, rare, active, masculine character, and into that of the negative qualities. The latter expressed really only the lack, the absence of the others, the positive ones. He therefore described the sphere in which the positive qualities are absent as dark, earthy, cold, heavy, dense and altogether as of feminine, passive character. Instead of the expressions positive and negative, he used the standing term, existent and non-existent, and had arrived with this at the proposition that in contradiction to Anaximander, this our world itself contains something existent and of course something non-existent. One is not to seek that existent outside the world and as it were above our horizon, but before us and everywhere in every becoming something existent and active is contained. With that, however, still remain to him the task of giving the more exact answer to the question, what is the becoming? And here was the moment where he had to leap in order not to fall, although perhaps to such natures as that of Parmenides, even any leaping means a falling. Enough, we get into fog, into the mysticism of Qualitatus occulti and even a little into mythology. Parmenides, like Heraclitus, looks at the general becoming and not remaining and explains to himself a passing only thus that the non-existent bore the guilt for how should the existent bear the guilt of passing. Likewise, however, the originating, that is, the becoming must come about through the assistance of the non-existent, for the existent is always there and could not of itself first originate, and it could not explain any originating any becoming. Therefore, the originating, the becoming, as well as the passing and perishing have been brought about by the negative qualities, but that the originating thing has a content and the passing thing loses a content presupposes that the positive qualities and that just means that very content participate likewise in both processes. In short, the proposition results for the becoming, the existent as well as the non-existent is necessary when they cooperate, then a becoming results. But how come the positive and the negative to one another? Should they not, on the contrary, eternally flee one another as antithesis and thereby make every becoming impossible? Here, Parmenides appeals to a qualitas occulta to a mystic tendency of the antithetical pairs to approach and attract one another, and he allegorizes that peculiar contrarity by the name of Aphrodite and by the empirically known relation of the male and female principle. It is the power of Aphrodite, which plays the matchmaker between the antithetical pair, the existent and the non-existent. Passion brings together the antagonistic and antipathetic elements. The result is a becoming. When desire has become satiated, hatred and the innate antagonism again drive us under the existent and the non-existent, then man says the thing perishes, passes. Ten, but no one with impunity lays his profane hands on such awful abstractions as the existent and the non-existent. The blood freezes slowly as one touches them. There was a day upon which an odd idea suddenly occurred to Parmenides, an idea which seemed to take all value away from his former combinations so that he felt inclined to throw them aside. Like a money bag with old worn out coins, it is commonly believed that an external impression, in addition to the centrifugal consequence of such ideas as existent and non-existent, has also been co-active in the invention of that day. This impression was an acquaintance with the theology of the old Romer and Rhapsodist, the singer of a mystic deification of nature, the Colophonian Xenophonies. Throughout an extraordinary life, Xenophonies lived as a wandering poet and became, through his travels, a well-informed and most instructive man who knew how to question and how to narrate, for which reason Heraclitus reckoned him amongst the Pali historians and above all amongst the historic natures in the sense mentioned. Whence and whence came to him the mystic bent into the one and the eternally resting, nobody will be able to compute. Perhaps it is only the conception of the finally settled old man to whom, after the agitation of his erratic wanderings and after the restless learning and searching for truth, the vision of a divine rest, the permanence of all things within a pantheistic primal peace appears as the highest and greatest ideal. After all, it seems to me quite accidental that in the same place in Aliyah two men lived together for a time each of whom carried in his head a conception of unity. They formed no school and had nothing in common, which perhaps the one might have learned from the other and then might have handed on, for in the case of these two men the origin of that conception of unity is quite different, yet opposite. And if either of them has become at all acquainted with the doctrine of the other, then, in order to understand it at all, he had to translate it first into his own language. With this translation, however, the very specific element of the other doctrine was lost, whereas Parmenides arrived at the unity of the existent purely through an alleged logical consequence, and whereas he spanned that unity out of the ideas being and not being, Sinophonies was a religious mystic and belonged with that mystic unity very properly to the sixth century. Although he was no such revolutionizing personality as Pythagoras, he had nevertheless in his wanderings the same bent in impulse to improve, purify and cure men. He was the ethical teacher, but still in the stage of the rhapsodist. In a later time he would have been a softest in the daring disapproval of the existing customs and valuations he had not his equal in Greece. Moreover, he did not like Heraclitus and Plato, retire into solitude, but placed himself before the very public whose exalting admiration of Homer, whose passionate propensity for the honors of the gymnastic festivals, whose adoration of stones in human shape he criticized severely with wrath and scorn, yet not as a brawling, thirst cities. The freedom of the individual was with him on its zenith, and by this almost limitless stepping free from all conventions, he was more closely related to Parmenides than by that last divine unity which once he had beheld in a visionary state worthy of that century. His unity scarcely had expression and word in common with the one being of Parmenides and certainly had not the same origin. It was rather an opposite state of mind in which Parmenides found his doctrine of being. On that day and in that state he examined his two cooperating antithesis, the existent and the non-existent, the positive and the negative qualities of which desire and hatred constitute the world and the becoming. He was suddenly caught up, mistrusting by the idea of negative quality of the non-existent, for can something which does not exist be a quality or to put the question in a broader sense, can anything indeed which does not exist exist? The only form of knowledge in which we at once put unconditional trust and the disapproval of which amounts to madness is the tautology a equals a. But this very tautological knowledge called inexorably to him, what does not exist exists not what is is. Suddenly he feels upon his life the load of an enormous logical sin for had he not always without hesitation assumed that there were existing negative qualities in short a non-existent that therefore to express it by a formula a equals not a, which indeed could only be advanced by the most out and out perversity of thinking. It is true as he recollected the whole great mass of men, judged with the same perversity, he himself has only participated in the general crime against logic. But the same moment which charges him with this crime surrounds him with the light of the glory of an invention he has found apart from all human illusion a principle of the key to the world's secret. He now descends into the abyss of things guided by the firm and fearful hand of the tautological truth as to being. On the way dither he meets Heraclitus an unfortunate encounter just now Heraclitus play with Antimonies was bound to be very hateful to him who placed the utmost importance upon the severe separation of being and not being propositions like this. We are and at the same time we are not being and not being is at the same time the same thing and again not the same thing propositions through which all that he had just elucidated and disentangled became again dim and inextricable inside of him to wrath away with the man he exclaimed to seem to have two heads and yet know nothing with them. Everything is in flux even their thinking they stare at things stupidly but they must be deaf as well as blind so to mix up the opposites. The want of judgment on the part of the masses glorified by playful and tendomies and praised as the acme of all knowledge was to him a painful and incomprehensible experience. Now he dived into the coal bath of his awful abstractions that which is true must exist in eternal presence about it cannot be said it was it will be the existing cannot have become for out of what should it have become out of the non existent. But that does not exist and can produce nothing out of the existing this would not produce anything but itself. The same applies to the passing it is just as impossible as the becoming as any change any increase any decrease on the whole the proposition is valid everything about which he can be said. It has been or it will be does not exist about the existing however it can never be said it does not exist the existing is indivisible for where is the second power which should divide it. It is immovable for whether should it move itself. It cannot be infinitely great nor infinitely small for it is perfect and a perfectly given infinity is a contradiction. Thus the existent is suspended delimited perfect immovable everywhere equally balanced and such equilibrium equally perfect at any point like a globe but not in the space for otherwise the space would be a second existent. But there cannot exist several existence for in order to separate them something would have to exist which was not existing an assumption which neutralizes itself. Thus there exists only the eternal unity. If now however Parmenides turned back his gaze to the world of becoming the existence of which he had formally tried to understand by such ingenious conjectures. He was Roth at his eye seeing the becoming at all is ear hearing it. Do not follow the dim sided eyes. Now his command runs not the resounding ear nor the tongue but examine only by the power of the thought. Therewith he accomplished the extremely important first critique of the apparatus of knowledge. Although this critique was still inadequate and prove disastrous in its consequences by tearing entirely asunder the senses and the ability to think in abstractions that is reason just as if they were to thoroughly separate capacities. He demolished the intellect itself and incited people to that holy erroneous separation of mind and body which especially since Plato lies like a curse on philosophy. All sense perceptions Parmenides judges cause only illusions and their chief illusion is there deluding us to believe that even the non existent exists that even the becoming has a being. All that plurality diversity and variety of the empirically known world the change of its qualities. The order in its ups and downs is thrown aside mercilessly as mere appearance and delusion. From there nothing is to be learned therefore all labor is wasted which one bestows upon this false through and through feudal world. The conception of which has been obtained by being humbug by the senses EU judges in such generalization as Parmenides did ceases there with to be an investigator of natural philosophy in detail is interested in phenomena withers away their develops even a hatred of being unable to get rid of this eternal fraud of the senses truth is now to dwell only in the most faded most abstract generalities and the empty husks of the most indefinite. Words as in a maze of cobwebs and by such a truth. Now the philosopher sits bloodless as an abstraction and surrounded by a web of formulae. The spider undoubtedly wants the blood of its victims but the Parmenides and philosopher hates the very blood of his victims the blood of empiricism sacrificed by him. And that was a Greek who flourished about the time of the outbreak of the Ionic Revolution. At that time it was possible for a Greek to flee out of the super abundant reality as out of a mere delusive schematicism of the imaginative faculties not perhaps like play to into the land of the eternal ideas into the workshop of the world creator in order to erase the eyes on unblemished unbreakable primal forms of things but into the rigid death like rest of the coldest and emptiest conception that of the being. We will indeed be aware of interpreting such a remarkable fact by false analogies that flight was not a world flight in the sense of Indian philosophers. The deep religious conviction as to the depravity transitoriness and accursedness of existence demanded that flight. That ultimate goal the rest in that being was not driven after as the mystic absorption in one all sufficing in rapturing conception which is a puzzle and a scandal to comment in the thought of Parmenides bears in itself not the slightest trace of the intoxicating mystical Indian fragrance, not wholly imperceptible in Pythagoras and in pedigrees. The strange thing in that fact at this period is rather the very absence of fragrance color soul form the total lack of blood religiosity and ethical want the abstract schematic in a Greek. Above all, however, our philosophers awful energy of striving after certainty in a mythically thinking and highly emotional fantastic age is quite remarkable. Grant me but a certainty you guys is the prayer of Parmenides and be it in the ocean of uncertainty only a board brought enough to lie on everything becoming everything luxuriant, very blossoming deceiving stimulating living. Take all that for yourselves and give to me but the single poor empty certainty. In the philosophy of Parmenides the theme of ontology forms the prelude experience offered him nowhere a being as he imagined it to himself but from the fact that he could conceive of it. He concluded that it must exist a conclusion which rests upon the supposition that we have an organ of knowledge which reaches into the nature of things and is independent of experience. The material of our thinking according to Parmenides does not exist in perception at all, but is brought in from somewhere else from an extra material world to which by thinking we have a direct access against all similar chains of reasoning Aristotle has already asserted that existence never belongs to the essence never belongs to the nature of a thing for that very reason from the idea of being of which the Ascension precisely is only the being cannot be inferred as an Existencia of the being at all. The logical content of that antithesis being and not being is perfectly nil if the object lying at the bottom of it if the precept cannot be given from which this antithesis has been deduced by abstraction. Without this going back to the precept the antithesis is only a play with conceptions through which indeed nothing is discerned. This is merely logical criterion of truth as Kant teaches, namely the agreement of a discernment with the general and the formal laws of intellect and reason is it is true the conditio sine qua non consequently the negative condition of all truth. Further, however, logic cannot go and logic cannot discover by any touchstone the error which pertains not to the form but to the contents. As soon however as one seeks the content for the logical truth of the antithesis that which is is that which is not is not. One will find indeed not a simple reality which is fashioned rigidly according to that antithesis about a tree, I can say as well. It is in comparison with all the other things as well it becomes in comparison with itself at another moment of time as finally also it is not. For example, it is not yet tree as long as I perhaps look at the shrub words are only symbols for the relations of things among themselves and to us and nowhere touch absolute truth and now to crown all the word being designates only the most relation which connects all things and so does the word not being if however the existence of the things themselves be unprovable then the relation of the things among themselves the so called being and not being will not bring us any nearer to the land of truth by means of words and ideas we shall never get behind the wall of the relations that is say into some fabulous primal cause of things and even in the pure forms of that sensitive faculty and of the intellect in space time and causality we gain nothing which might resemble a very toss. It is absolutely impossible for the subject to see and discern something beyond himself so impossible that cognition and being are the most contradictory of all spheres. And if in the uninstructed naivete of the then critique of the intellect parmenides were permitted to fancy that out of the eternally subjective idea, he come to a being in itself, and it is today after Kant a daring ignorance. If here and there especially among badly informed theologians who want to play the philosopher is proposed as the task of philosophy to conceive the absolute by means of consciousness, perhaps even in the form. The absolute is already extant else how could it be sought as Hegel has expressed himself, or with the saying of Benikey, that the being must be given somehow must be attainable for us somehow, since otherwise we could not even have the idea of being. The idea of being as though that idea did not indicate the most miserable empiric origin already in the etymology of the word for essay means at the bottom to breathe. If man uses it of all other things than he transmits the conviction that he himself breathes and lives by means of a metaphor that is by means of something illogical to the other things and conceives of their existence as a breathing according to human analogy. Now the original meaning of the word soon becomes effaced so much however it still remains that man conceives of the existence of other things according to the analogy of his own existence therefore anthropomorphically and at any rate by means of an illogical transmission, even to man therefore apart from that transmission the proposition I breathe, therefore a being exists is quite insufficient since against it, the same objection must be made as against the Ambulo ergo sum or ergo est. 12. The other idea of greater import than that of the existent and likewise invented already by Parmentides although not yet so clearly applied as by his disciple Zeno is the idea of the infinite, nothing infinite can exist for from such an assumption the contradictory idea of a perfect infinitude would result. Since now our actuality our existing world everywhere shows the character of that perfect infinitude our world signifies in its nature or contradiction against logic and therewith also against reality and his deception lie Phantasma. Zeno especially applied the method of indirect proof he said for example there can be no motion from one place to another for if there were such emotion then an infinitude could be given as perfect this however is an impossibility. Achilles cannot catch up the tortoise which has a small start in a race for in order to reach only the point from which the tortoise began. He would have had to run through innumerable infinitely many spaces bees first half of that space than the fourth than the 16th and so on odd infinitum. If he does in fact overtake the tortoise then this is an illogical phenomenon and therefore at any rate not a truth not a reality not real being but only a delusion. For it is never possible to finish the infinite. Another popular expression of this document is the flying and yet resting error at any instant of its flight it has a position in this position at rest. Now with the sum of the infinite positions of rest be identical with motion would now the resting infinitely often repeated be motion therefore its own opposite. The infinite is here used as the aqua Fortis of reality through it the latter is dissolved. If however the ideas are fixed eternal and in tied to tith and for promenities being and thinking coincide it therefore the infinite can never be perfect if rest can never become motion. Then in fact the arrow has not flown at all. It never left its place and resting position no moment of time has passed or expressed in another way in this so called yet only alleged actuality there exists neither time nor space nor motion. Finally the arrow itself is only an illusion for it originates out of the plurality out of the phantasmagoria of the non one produced by the senses suppose the arrow had a being then it would be immovable timeless in create rigid and eternal and impossible conception supposing that motion was truly real then there would be no rest therefore no position for the arrow, therefore no space and impossible conception. Supposing that time were real then it could not be of an infinite divisibility. The time which the arrow needed would have to consist of a limited number of time moments. Each of these moments would have to be an atom on and impossible conception. All our conceptions as soon as they're empirically given content drawn out of this concrete world is taken as a where eternal lead to contradictions. If there is absolute motion then there is no space. If there is absolute space then there is no motion. If there is absolute being then there is no plurality. If there is an absolute plurality then there is no unity. It should at least become clear to us how little we touch the heart of things or untie the knot of reality with such ideas, whereas Parmenides and Zeno inversely hold fast to the truth and I'm the validity of ideas and condemn the perceptible world as the opposite of the true and I'm the valid ideas as an objectivation of the illogical and contradictory with all their proofs they start from the holy and demonstrable yay improbable assumption that in that apprehensive faculty we possess the decisive highest criterion of being and not being that is of objective reality and it's opposite. Those ideas are not to prove themselves true to correct themselves by actuality as they are after all really derived from it but on the contrary they are to measure and to judge actuality and in case of a contradiction with logic even to condemn. In order to concede to them this judicial competence Parmenides had to ascribe to them the same being which alone he allowed in general as the being. Thinking and that one in create perfect ball of the existent were now no longer to be conceived as two different kinds of being since there was not permitted a duality of being. Thus the over risky flash of fancy have become necessary to declare thinking and being identical. No form of perceptibility, no symbol, no similarly could possibly be of any help. Here, the fancy was wholly inconceivable, but it was necessary in the lack of every possibility of illustration. It celebrated the highest triumph over the world and the claims of the senses thinking and that cloud like ball shaped through and through death massive and rigid immovable being must according to the part median imperative dissolve into one another and be the same in every respect to the horror of fantasy. What does it matter that this identity contradicts the senses. This contradiction is just the guarantee that such an identity is not barred from the senses. In of section 10 section 11 of early Greek philosophy and other essays by Frederick Nietzsche. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain section 11 philosophy during the tragic age of the Greeks part 5 13. Moreover, against parmedities could be produced a strong couple of argumenta ad hominem or ex con casus by which it is true truth itself could not be brought to light but at any rate the untruth of that absolute separation of the world of the senses and the world of the ideas and the untruth of the identity of being and thinking could be demonstrated. Firstly, if the thinking of reason in ideas is real, then also plurality and motion must have reality for rational thinking is mobile. And more precisely, it is a motion from idea to idea, therefore within a plurality of realities. There is no subterfuge against that. It is quite impossible to designate thinking as a rigid permanence as an eternally immobile intellectual introspection of unity. Secondly, if only fraud and delusion come from the senses and if in reality there exists only the real identity of being and thinking what then are the senses themselves. They too are certainly appearance only since they do not coincide with the thinking and their product the world of senses does not coincide with being. If however the senses themselves are appearance to whom then are they appearance how can they being unreal still deceive the non existent cannot even deceive. Therefore the wance of deception and appearance remains an enigma. We call these argumenta ad hominem, the objection of the mobile reason and that of the origin of appearance. From the first would result the reality of motion and a plurality from the second the impossibility of the parmenidean appearance assuming that the chief doctrine of parmenides on the being were accepted as being. This chief doctrine however only says the existent only has a being that non existent does not exist. If motion however has such a being then to motion applies what applies to the existent in general. It is in create eternal indestructible without increase or decrease. But if the appearance is denied and a belief in it made untenable by means of that question as to the wance of the appearance if the stage of the so-called becoming of change are many shaped restless colored and rich existence is protected from the parmenidean rejection. And it is necessary to characterize this world of change and alteration as a soon of such really existing essentials existing simultaneously into all eternity. Of a change in the strict sense of a becoming there cannot naturally be any question even with this assumption. But now plurality as a real being all qualities have a real being and motion not less. And of any moment of this world although these moments chosen at random lie at a distance of millenniums from one another it would have to be possible to say all real essentials extant in this world are without exception co existent unaltered undiminished without increase without decrease. A millennium later the world is exactly the same. Nothing has altered. If in spite of that the appearance of the world at the one time is quite different from that at the other time than that is no deception. Nothing merely apparent but the effect of eternal motion. The real existent is moved sometimes thus sometimes thus together asunder upwards downwards into one another. With this conception we've already taken a step into the realm of the doctrine of an axe agorus by him both objections against parmenides are raised in full strength that of the mobile thinking and that of the wence of appearance. But in the chief proposition parmenides has subjugated him as well as all the younger philosophers and nature explorers. They all deny the possibility of becoming and passing as the mind of the people conceives them and as an axiomander and heraclitus had assumed with greater circumspection and yet still heedlessly. Such a mythological originating out of the nothing such a disappearing into the nothing such an arbitrary changing of the nothing into the something such a random exchanging putting on and putting off of the qualities was henceforth considered senseless. But so was and for the same reasons and originating of the many out of the one of the manifold qualities out of the one primal quality in short the derivation of the world out of our primary substance as argued by Thales and heraclitus. Rather was now the real problem advanced of applying the doctrine of in create imperishable being to this existing world without taking one's refuge in the theory of appearance and deception. But if the empiric world is not to be appearance if the things are not to be derived out of nothing and just as little out of the one something then these things must contain in themselves a real being. Their matter and content must be unconditionally real and all change can refer only to the form that is to the position order grouping mixing separation of these eternally coexisting essentials. It is just as in a game of dice they are ever the same dice but falling sometimes thus sometimes thus they mean to us something different. All older theories had gone back to a primal element as womb and cause of becoming be this water, air, fire or the indefinite of Anaximander. Against that Anaxagoras now asserts that out of the equal the unequal could never come forth and that out of the one existing the change could never be explained. Whether now one were to imagine that assumed matter to be rarefied or condensed one would never succeed by such a condensation or rarefaction in explaining the problem. One would like to explain the plurality of qualities that if the world in fact is full of the most different qualities than these must in case they are not appearance have a being that is must be eternal in create imperishable and ever coexisting. Appearance however they cannot be since the question as to the whence of appearance remains unanswered yet answers itself in the negative. The earlier seekers after truth had intended to simplify the problem of becoming by advancing only one substance which bore in its bosom the possibilities of all becoming. Now on the contrary it is asserted there are innumerable substances but never more nevertheless and never new ones only motion playing dice with them throws them into ever new combinations. That motion however is a truth and not appearance Anaxagoras proved in opposition to parmenides by the indisputable succession of our conceptions in thinking. We have therefore in the most direct fashion the insight into the truth of motion and succession in the fact that we think and have conceptions. Therefore at any rate the one rigid resting dead being of parmenides has been removed out of the way there are many existence just as surely as all these many existence existing things substances are in motion. Change is motion but whence originates motion does this motion leave perhaps wholly untouched the proper essence of those many independent isolated substances and according to the most severe idea of the existent must not motion in itself be foreign to them. Or does it after all belong to the things themselves we stand here at an important decision according to which way we turn we shall step into the realm either of Anaxagoras or of and pedigrees or of democratists. The delicate question must be raised if there are many substances and if these many move what moves them. Do they move one another or is it perhaps only gravitation or are their magic forces of attraction and repulsion within the things themselves. Or does the cause of motion lie outside these many real substances or putting the question more pointedly. If two things show a succession a mutual change of position does that originate from themselves and is this to be explained mechanically or magically. Or if this should not be the case is it a third something which moves them. It is a sorry problem for Parmenides would still have been able to prove against Anaxagoras the impossibility of motion even granted that there are many substances. For he could say take two substances existing of themselves each with quite differently fashioned autonomous unconditioned being and of such kind are the Anaxagorean substances. They can never clash together never move never attract one another there exists between them no causality no bridge they do not come into contact with one another do not disturb one another. They do not interest one another there are utterly indifferent. The impact then is just as inexplicable as the magic attraction that which is utterly foreign cannot exercise any effect upon another therefore cannot move itself nor allow itself to be moved. Parmenides would even have added the only way of escape which is left to you as this to ascribe motion to the things themselves. Then however all that you know and see as motion is indeed only a deception and not true motion for the only kind of motion which could belong to those absolutely original substances will be merely and are. Targonous motion limited to themselves without any effect but you assume motion in order to explain those effects of change of the disarrangement in space of alteration and short the causalities and relations of the things among themselves. But these very effects would not be explained and would remain as problematic as ever for this reason one cannot conceive why it should be necessary to assume a motion since it does not perform that which you demand from it. Motion does not belong to the nature of things and is eternally foreign to them. Those opponents of the Elliotian unmoved unity were induced to make light of such an argument by prejudices of our perceptual character. It seems so irrefutable that each veritable existence is a space filling body a lump of matter larger small but in any case spatially dimensioned so that two or more such lumps cannot be in one space. Under this hypothesis and exagorous as later on democratists assumed that they must knock against each other. If in their emotions they came by chance upon one another that they would dispute the same space with each other and that this struggle was the very cause of all change. In other words those wholly isolated thoroughly heterogeneous and eternally unalterable substances were after all not conceived as being absolutely heterogeneous. But all had in addition to a specifically peculiar quality also one absolutely homogenous substratum a piece of space filling matter in their participation in matter they all stood equal and therefore could act upon one another. That is not one another overall change did not in the least depend on the heterogeneity of those substances but on their homogeneity as matter. At the bottom of the assumption of an exagorous is a logical oversight for that which is the existence in itself must be wholly unconditional and coherent is therefore not allowed to assume as its cause anything. Whereas all those annex agrarian substances have still a conditioning something matter and already assumed its existence. The substance red for example was to an exagorous not just merely read in itself but also in a reserved or suppressed way a piece of matter without inequalities. Only with this matter the red in itself acted upon other substances not with the red but with that which is not read not colored nor in any way qualitatively definite. If the red had been taken strictly as red as the real substance itself therefore without that substratum then an axe agress would certainly not have dared to speak of an effect of the red upon other substances perhaps even with the phrase that the red in itself was transmitting the impact received from the fleshy in itself then it would be clear that such an existent par excellence could never be moved. 15. One has to glance at the opponents of the leites in order to appreciate the extraordinary advantages in the assumption of parmenides. What embarrassments from which parmenides had escaped awaited an axe agress and all who believed in a plurality of substances with the question how many substances an axe agress made the lead closed his eyes and said infinitely many. In short plurality motion infinity driven into flight by parmenides with the amazing proposition of the one being returned from their exile and hurl their projectiles of parmenides. In that assumption was given the contradiction of an infinity to be conceived as completed and perfect. In short plurality motion infinity driven into flight by parmenides with the amazing proposition of the one being returned from their exile and hurl their projectiles of the opponents of parmenides causing them wounds for which there is no cure. Obviously those opponents have no real consciousness and knowledge as to the awful force of those leitean thoughts. There can be no time no motion no space for all these we can only think of as infinite and to be more explicit firstly infinitely large than infinitely divisible. But everything infinite has no being does not exist. And there's nobody doubts who takes the meaning of the word being severely and considers the existence of something contradictory impossible. For example the existence of a completed infinity. If however the very actuality shows us everything under the form of the completed infinity then it becomes evident that it contradicts itself and therefore has no true reality. If those opponents however should object but in your thinking itself there does exist succession therefore neither could your thinking be real and consequently could not prove anything. Then parmenides perhaps like Kant in a similar case of an equal objection would have answered I can it is true say my conceptions follow upon one another but that means only that we are not conscious of them unless within a chronological order that is according to the form of the inner sense. For that reason time is not something in itself nor any order or quality objectively adherent to things we should therefore have to distinguish between the pure thinking that would be timeless like the one parmenides in being. And the consciousness of this thinking and the latter would already translate the thinking into the form of appearance. That is a succession plurality emotion it is probable that parmenides would have availed himself of this loophole. However the same objection would then have to be raised against him which is raised against Kant by a spear thinking and reality second edition volume one pages 209 etc. Now in the first place however it is clear that I cannot know anything about succession as such unless I have the successive members of the same simultaneously in my consciousness. Thus the conception of a succession itself is not at all successive hence also quite different from the succession of our conceptions. Secondly Kant's assumption implies such obvious absurdities that one is surprised that he could leave them unnoticed. Caesar and Socrates according to this assumption are not really dead they still live exactly as they did 2000 years ago and only seem to be dead as a consequence of an organization of my inner sense. Future been already live and if they do not now step forward as living that organization of the inner senses likewise the cause of it. Here above all other things the question is to be put how can the beginning and the end of conscious life itself together with all its internal and external senses exists merely in the conception of the inner sense. The fact is indeed this that one certainly cannot deny the reality of change if it is thrown out through the window it slips in again through the keyhole. If one says it merely seems to me that conditions and conceptions change then this very semblance and appearance itself is something objectively existing and within it without doubt the succession has objective reality some things in it really do succeed one another. Besides one must observe that indeed the whole critique of reason only has cause and right of existence under the assumption that to us our conceptions themselves appear exactly as they are. For if the conceptions also appear to us otherwise than they really are then one would not be able to advance any solid proposition about them and therefore would not be able to accomplish any no theology or any transcendental investigation of objective validity. Now it remains however beyond all doubt that our conceptions themselves appear to us as successive the contemplation of this undoubted succession and agitation has now urged an exagorous to a memorable hypothesis. Obviously the conceptions themselves move themselves were not pushed and had no cause of motion outside themselves. Therefore he said to himself there exists a something which bears in itself the origin and the commencement of motion. Secondly however he notices that this conception was moving not only itself but also something quite different the body. He discovers therefore in the most immediate experience an effect of conceptions upon expansive matter which makes itself known as motion in the latter. That was to him a fact and only incidentally it stimulated him to explain this fact. That is sufficed that he had a regulative schema for the motion in this in the world. This motion he now understood either as a motion of the true isolated essences through the conceptual principle the noose or as a motion through a something already moved. That with his fundamental assumption the latter kind the mechanical transmission of motions and impacts likewise contained in itself a problem probably escaped him. The commonness and everyday occurrence of the effect through impact most probably dulled his eye to the mysteriousness of impact. On the other hand he certainly felt the problematic even contradictory nature of an effect of conceptions upon substances existing in themselves. And he also tried therefore to trace this effect back to a mechanical push and impact which were considered by him as quite comprehensible. For the noose too was without doubt such a substance existing in itself and was characterized by him as a very delicate and subtle matter with a specific quality of thinking. With the character assumed in this way the effect of this matter upon other matter had of course to be of exactly the same kind as that which another substance exercises upon a third. That is a mechanical effect moving by pressure and impact. Still the philosopher had now a substance which moves itself and other things a substance of which the motion did not come from outside and depended on no one else. Whereas it seemed almost a matter of indifference how this auto mobilism was to be conceived of perhaps similar to that pushing themselves to the end of a very fragile and small globules of quick silver. Among all questions which concern motion there is none more troublesome than the question as to the beginning of motion. For if one may be allowed to conceive of all remaining motions as effect in consequences then nevertheless the first primal motion is still to be explained for the mechanical motions. The first link of the chain certainly cannot lie in a mechanical motion since that would be as good as recurring to the nonsensical idea of a cause sui. But likewise it is not feasible to attribute to the eternal unconditional things a motion of their own as it were from the beginning as dowry of their existence. For motion cannot be conceived without a direction wither and whereupon therefore only as relation and condition. But a thing is no longer entototive in itself and unconditional if according to its nature it refers necessarily to something existing outside of it. In this embarrassment Annex Agris thought he had found an extraordinary help and salvation in that news, automobile and otherwise independent. The nature of that news being just obscure and veiled enough to produce the deception about it that its assumption also involves that forbidden causes sui. To empiric observation it is even an established fact that conception is not a causa sui but the effect of the brain. Yea, it must appear to that observation as an odd eccentricity to separate the mind, the product of the brain from its causa and still to deem it existing after this severing. This Annex Agris did, he forgot the brain, its marvelous design, the delicacy and intricacy of its convolutions and passages and he decreed the mind in itself. This mind in itself alone among all substances had free will, a grand discernment. This mind was able at any odd time to begin with the motion of the things outside it. On the other hand for ages and ages it could occupy itself with itself. In short Annex Agris was allowed to assume a first moment of motion in some prime evil age as the Jalaza of all so called becoming. That is of all change, namely of all shifting and rearranging of the eternal substances and their particles. Although the mind itself is eternal it is in no way compelled to torment itself for eternities with the shifting about of grains of matter. And certainly there was a time and a state of those matters. It is quite indifferent whether that time was of long or short duration during which the news had not acted upon them during which they were still unmoved. That is the period of the Annex Agris chaos. The Annex Agris chaos is not an immediately evident conception. In order to grasp it one must have understood the conception which our philosopher had with respect to the so called becoming. For in itself the state of all heterogeneous elementary existences before all motion would by no means necessarily result in an absolute mixture of all seeds of things. As the expression Annex Agris runs an intermixture which he imagined as a complete palmel disordered in its smallest parts after all these elementary existences have been as in a mortar pounded and resolved into atoms of dust. So that now in that chaos as in an amphora they could be whirled into a medley. One might say that this conception of a chaos did not contain anything inevitable that one merely needed rather to assume any chance position of all those existences but not an infinite decomposition of them. An irregular side by side arrangement was already sufficient there was no need of a palmel let alone such a total palmel what therefore put into an axe agris head that difficult and complex conception. As already said his conception of the empirically given becoming. From his experience he drew first the most extraordinary proposition on the becoming and this proposition necessarily resulted in that doctrine of the chaos as its consequence. The observation of the processes of evolution in nature, not a consideration of an earlier philosophical system suggested to Annex Agris the doctrine that all originated from all. This was the conviction of the natural philosopher based upon a manifold and at the bottom of course excessively inadequate induction. He proved it thus if even the contrary could originate out of the contrary for example the black out of the white everything is possible that however did happen with the dissolution of white snow into black water. The nourishment of the body. He explained to himself in this way that in the articles of food there must be invisibly small constituents of flesh or blood or bone which during alimentation became disengaged and united with the homogeneous in the body. If all can become out of all the firm out of the liquid the heart out of the soft the black out of the white the flesh out of bread then also all must be contained in all the names of things in that case express only the preponderance of the one substance over the other substances to be met with in smaller often imperceptible quantities. In gold that is to say in that which one designates a potoriori by the name gold there must be also contain silver snow bread and flesh but in very small quantities the whole is called after the preponderating item the gold substance. But how is it possible that one substance preponderates and fills a thing in greater mass than the other's present experience shows that this preponderance is gradually produced only through motion that the preponderance is the result of a process which we commonly call becoming. On the other hand that all is in all is not the result of a process but on the contrary the preliminary condition of all becoming and all motion and is consequently previous to all becoming. In other words experience teaches that continually the like is added to the like for example through nourishment therefore originally those homogeneous substances were not together and agglomerated but they were separate. Rather in all empiric processes coming before our eyes the homogeneous is always segregated from the heterogeneous and transmitted for example during nourishment the particles of flesh out of the bread etc. Consequently the pale male of the different substances is the older form of the constitution of things and in point of time previous to all becoming and moving. If all so-called becoming is a segregating and presupposes a mixture the question arises what degree of intermixture this pale male must have had originally. Although the process of moving on the part of the homogeneous to the homogeneous that is becoming has already lasted an immense time one recognizes in spite of that that even yet in all things remainders and sea grains of all other things are enclosed waiting for their segregation and one recognizes further that only here and there a preponderance has been brought about. The primal mixture must have been a complete one that is going down to the infinitely small since the separation and a mixing takes up an infinite length of time. Thereby strict adherence is paid to the thought that everything which possesses an essential being is infinitely divisible without forfeiting its bactericum. According to these hypotheses and axe agris conceives of the world's primal existence perhaps as similar to a dust like mass of infinitely small concrete particles of which every one is specifically simple and possesses one quality only yet so arranged that every specific quality is represented in an infinite number of individual particles. Such particles Aristotle has called home or marry in consideration of the fact that they are the parts all equal one to another of a whole which is homogeneous with his parts. One would however commit a serious mistake to equate this primal palmel of all such particles such sea grains of things to the one primal matter of an axe Amanda for the latter's primal matter called the indefinite is a thoroughly coherent and peculiar mass. The former's primal palmel is an aggregate of substances. It is true one can assert about this aggregate of substances exactly the same as about the indefinite of an axe Amanda. As Aristotle does it could be neither white or gray nor black nor of any other color. It was tasteless and all together as a whole to find neither quantitatively nor qualitatively. The foregoes the similarity of an axe a Mandarin indefinite and the an axe a Korean primal mixture but disregarding this negative equality. They distinguish themselves one from another positively by the latter being a compound a former unity an axe agris had by the assumption of his chaos at least so much to his advantage that he was not compelled to deduce the many from the one that becoming out of the existent. Of course with his complete inter mixture of the seeds he had to admit one exception the news was not then nor is it now at mixed with anything for if it were at mixed with only one existent. It would have an infinite divisions to dwell in all things. This exception is logically very dubious especially considering the previously described material nature of the news. It is something mythological in itself and seems arbitrary but was however according to an axe a Korean prime missus strict necessity. The mind which is more over infinitely divisible like any other matter only not through other matters but through itself has if it divides itself in dividing and conglabating sometimes enlarge sometimes in small masses it's equal mass and quality from all eternity. And that which at this minute exists as mind in animals plants men was also mined without a more or less although distributed in another way a thousand years ago. But wherever it had a relation to another substance there it never was at mixed with it but voluntarily seized it moved and pushed it arbitrarily in short ruled it. Mind which alone has motion in itself alone possesses ruling power in this world and shows it through moving the grains of matter but whether does it move them or is a motion conceivable without direction without path is mind in its impacts just as arbitrary as it is with regard to the time when it pushes and when it does not push in short does chance that is the blindest option rule within motion at this boundary we step into the most holy within the conceptual realm of an axe agoras. And section 11 section 12 of early Greek philosophy and other essays by Frederick Nietzsche. This Libra box recording is in the public domain section 12 philosophy during the tragic age of the Greeks part six 17 what had to be done with that chaotic palmel of the primal state previous to all motion. So that out of it without any increase of new substances and forces the existing world might originate with its regular stellar orbits with its regulated forms of seasons and days with its manifold beauty and order. In short so that out of the chaos might come a cosmos. This can be only the effect of motion and of a definite and well organized motion. This motion itself is the means of the news. Its goal would be the perfect segregation of the homogeneous a goal up to the present not yet attained because the disorder and the mixture in the beginning was infinite. This goal is to be driven after only by an enormous process not to be realized suddenly by a mythological stroke of the wand. If ever at an infinitely distant point of time it is achieved that everything homogeneous is brought together and the primal existences undivided are encamped side by side in beautiful order. And every particle has found its comrades and its home and the great peace comes about after the great division and splitting up of the substances and there will be no longer anything that is divided and split up. Then the news will again return into its auto mobilism and no longer itself divided Rome through the world sometimes in larger sometimes in smaller masses as plant mind or animal mind and no longer will it take up its new dwelling place in other matter. Meanwhile the task has not been completed but the kind of motion which the news has thought out in order to solve the task shows a marvelous suitableness for by this motion the task is further solved in each new moment for this motion has the character of concentrically progressive circular motion. It began at some one point of the chaotic mixture in the form of a little gyration and in ever larger paths. This circular movement traverses all existing being jerking forth everywhere the homogeneous to the homogeneous. At first this revolution brings everything dense to the dense everything rare to the rare and likewise all that is dark bright moist dry to their kind above these general groups or classifications. There are again to still more comprehensive namely ether that is to say everything that is warm bright rare and air that is to say everything that is dark cold heavy farm through the segregation of the ethereal masses from the aerial. There is formed as the most immediate effect of that epicycle whose center moves along in the serve conference of ever greater circles as something as in an Eddie made in standing water. Heavy compounds are led towards the middle and compressed just in the same way that traveling water spout in chaos forms itself on the outer side out of the ethereal rare bright constituents on the inner side out of the cloudy heavy moist constituents. Then in the course of this process out of that aerial mass conglomerating in its interior water is separated and again out of the water the earthy element and then out of the earthy element under the effect of the awful cold are separated the stones. Again at some juncture masses of stone through the momentum of the rotation are torn away sideways from the earth and thrown into the realm of the hot light ether. There in the lateral fiery element they are made to glow and carried along in the ethereal rotation they irradiate light and as sun and stars illuminate and warm the earth in herself dark and cold. The whole conception is about wonderful daring and simplicity and as nothing of that clumsy and anthropomorphical deliology which has been frequently connected with the name of an exagerus. That conception has its greatness just in this that it derives the whole cosmos of becoming out of the moved circle whereas Parmenides contemplated the true existence as a resting dead ball. Once that circle is put into motion and caused to roll by the noose then all the order law and beauty of the world is the natural consequence of that first impetus. How very much one wrongs an exagerus if one reproaches him for the wise abstention from teleology which shows itself in this conception and talks cornfully of his noose as of a deus ex machina. Rather on account of the elimination of mythological and theistic miracle working and anthropomorph against and utilities an exagerus might have made use of proud words similar to those which can't used in his natural history of the heavens. For it is indeed a sublime thought to retrace that grandeur of the cosmos and the marvelous arrangement of the orbits of the stars to retrace all that in all forms to a simple purely mechanical motion. And as it were to a moved mathematical figure and therefore not to reduce all that to purposes and intervening hands of a machine God but only to a kind of oscillation which having once begun is in its progress necessary and definite. And effects result which resemble the wisest computation of sagacity and extremely well thought out fitness without being anything of the sort. I enjoy the pleasure says Kant of seeing how a well ordered whole produces itself without the assistance of arbitrary fabrications under the impulse of fixed laws of motion. A well ordered whole which looks so similar to that world system which is ours that I cannot abstain from considering it to be the same. It seems to me that one might say here in a certain sense without presumption give me matter and I will build a world out of it. 18 suppose now that for once we allow that primal mixture as rightly concluded some considerations especially from mechanics seem to oppose the grand plan of the world edifice for even though the mind at a point causes a circular movement is continuation is only conceivable with great difficulty especially since it is to be infinite and gradually to make all existing masses rotate. As a matter of course one would assume that the pressure of all the remaining matter would have crushed out the small circular movement when it had scarcely begun that this does not happen presupposes on the part of the stimulating news that the letter began to work suddenly with awful force or at any rate so quickly that we must call the motion a world. Such a world as democratists himself imagined and since this world must be infinitely strong in order not to be checked through the whole world of the infinite weighing heavily upon it it will be infinitely quick for strength can manifest itself originally only in speed. On the contrary, the broader the concentric rings are the slower will be this motion. If once the motion could reach the end of the infinitely extended world, then this motion would have already infinitely little speed of rotation by subversa. If we conceive of the motion as infinitely great that is infinitely quick at the moment of the very first beginning of motion than the original circle must have been infinitely small. We get therefore as the beginning a particle rotated round itself a particle with an infinitely small material content. This however would not at all explain the further motion one might imagine even all particles of the primal mass to rotate round themselves and yet the whole mass would remain unmoved and unseparated. If however that material particle of infinite smallness caught and swung by the news was not turned round itself but described a circle somewhat larger than a point this would cause it to knock against other material particles to move them on to hurl them to make them rebound. And thus gradually to stir up a great and spreading tumult within which as the next result that separation of the aerial masses from the ethereal had to take place. Just as the commencement of the motion itself is an arbitrary act of the news, arbitrary also is the manner of this commencement in so far as the first motion circumscribes a circle of which the radius is chosen somewhat larger than a point. Nineteen here of course one might ask what fancy had at that time so suddenly occurred to the news to knock against some chance material particle out of that number of particles and to turn it around in whirling dance and why that did not occur to it earlier. Whereupon an axagoras would answer the news has the privilege of arbitrary action. It may begin at any chance time it depends on itself whereas everything else is determined from outside. It has no duty and no end which it might be compelled to pursue if it did once begin with that motion and set itself an end. This after all was only the answer is difficult. Heraclitus would say play. That seems always to have been the last solution or answer hovering on the lips of the Greek. The anaxagorean mind is an artist and in truth the most powerful genius of mechanics and architecture creating with the simplest means the most magnificent forms and tracks and as it were a mobile architecture but always out of that irrational arbitrariness which lies in the soul of the artist. It is as though an axagoras was pointing at Phidias and in face of the immense work of art because most was calling out to us as he would do in front of the Parthenon. The becoming is no moral but only an artistic phenomenon. Aristotle relates that to the question what made life worth living an axagoras had answered contemplating the heavens and the total order of the cosmos. He treated physical things so devotionally and with that same mysterious awe which we feel when standing in front of an antique temple. His doctrine became a species of free thinking religious exercise protecting itself through the Odiprophonum vulgus et archaio and choosing its adherence with precaution out of the highest and noblest society of Athens. In the exclusive community of the Athenian anaxagoreans the mythology of the people was allowed only as a symbolic language. All myths all gods all heroes were considered here only as hieroglyphics of the interpretation of nature and even the Homeric epic was said to be the cononic song of the sway of the noose and the struggles and laws of nature. Here and there a note from the society of sublime free thinkers penetrated to the people and especially Euripides the great and at all times daring Euripides ever thinking of something new dared to let many things become known by means of the tragic mask many things which pierced like an arrow through the senses of the masses and from which the latter freed themselves only by means of ludicrous caricatures and ridiculous reinterpretations. The greatest of all anaxagoreans however is Pericles the mightiest and worthiest man of the world and Plato bears witness that the philosophy of anaxagoras alone have given that sublime flight to the genius of Pericles. When as a public orator he stood before his people in the beautiful rigidity and immobility of a marble Olympian and now calm wrapped in his mantle with unruffled drapery without any change of facial expression without smile with a voice the strong tone of which remained ever the same and when he now spoke in an absolutely un-demasthenic but merely Pericles in fashion when he thundered struck with lightnings annihilated and redeemed then he was the epitome of the anaxagorean cosmos. The image of the news who is built for itself the most beautiful and dignified receptacle then Pericles was as it were the visible human incarnation of the building moving eliminating ordering reviewing artistically undetermined force of the mind. Anaxagoras himself said man was the most rational being or he must necessarily shelter the news within himself in greater fullness than all other beings because he had such admirable organs as his hands. Anaxagoras concluded therefore that that news according to the extent to which it made itself master of a material body was always forming for itself out of this material the tools corresponding to its degree of power. Consequently the news made the most beautiful and appropriate tools when it was appearing in his greatest fullness. And as the most wondrous and appropriate action of the news was that circular primal motion since at that time the mind was still together undivided in itself. Thus to the listening anaxagoras the effect of the periclean speech often appeared perhaps as a simile of that circular primal motion. For here too he perceived a whirl of thoughts moving itself at first with awful force but in an orderly manner which in concentric circles gradually caught and carried away the nearest and farthest in which when it reached its end had reshaped organizing and segregating the whole nation. To the later philosophers of antiquity the way in which anaxagoras made use of his news for the interpretation of the world was strange indeed scarcely pardonable. To them it seemed as though he had found a grand tool but had not well understood it and they tried to retrieve what the finder had neglected. They therefore did not recognize what meaning the abstention of anaxagoras inspired by the pure spirit of the method of natural science had. And that this abstention first of all in every case puts to itself the question what is the cause of something. Causa aphiskians and not what is the purpose of something. Causa banalis. The news has not been dragged in by anaxagoras for the purpose of answering the special question what is the cause of motion and what causes regular motions. Plato however reproaches him that he ought to have but have not shown that everything was in its own fashion and its own place the most beautiful the best and the most appropriate. But this anaxagoras would not have dared to assert in any individual case to him the existing world was not even the most conceivably perfect world. For he saw everything originate out of everything and he found the segregation of the substances through the news complete and done with neither at the end of the filled space of the world nor in the individual beings. For his understanding it was sufficient that he had found a motion which by simple continued action could create the visible order out of a chaos mixed through and through. And he took good care not to put the question as to the why of the motion as to the rational purpose of motion. For if the news had to fulfill by means of motion a purpose innate in the nominal essence then it was no longer in its free will to commence the motion at any chance time. Insofar as the news is eternal it had also to be determined eternally by this purpose and then no point of time could have been allowed to exist in which motion was still lacking. Indeed it would have been logically forbidden to assume a starting point for motion whereby again the conception of original chaos the basis of the whole anaxagorean interpretation of the world would likewise have become logically impossible. In order to escape such difficulties which T. Lyadavji creates anaxagoras had always to emphasize and to separate that the mind has free will. All its actions including that of the primal motion were actions of the free will whereas on the contrary after that primeval moment the whole remaining world was shaping itself in a strictly determined and more precisely mechanically determined form. That absolutely free will however can be conceived only as purposeless somewhat after the fashion of children's play or the artist's bent for play. It is an error to ascribe to anaxagoras the common confusion of the teleologist who marveling at the extraordinary appropriateness at the agreement of the parts with the whole especially in the realm of the organic assumes that that which exists for the intellect had also come into existence through intellect that that which man brings about only under the guidance of the idea of purpose must have been brought about by nature through reflection and ideas of purpose. Schopenhauer the world as will and idea volume 2 second book chapter 26 on teleology conceived in the manner of anaxagoras however the order and appropriateness of things on the contrary is nothing but the immediate result of a blind mechanical motion only in order to cause this motion in order to get for once out of the dead rest of the chaos anaxagoras assumed the free willed noose who depends only on itself. He appreciated in the noose just the very quality of being a thing of chance a chance agent therefore being able to act unconditioned undetermined guided neither by causes nor by purposes. Notes for a continuation, early part of 1873 that this total conception of the anaxagorean doctrine must be right is proved most clearly by the way in which the successors of anaxagoras, the agra gentine and pedigrees and the atomic teacher in their counter systems actually criticized and improved that doctrine. The method of this critique is more than anything a continued renunciation in that spirit of natural science mentioned above the law of economy applied to the interpretation of nature. That hypothesis which explains the existing world with the smallest expenditure of assumptions and means is to have preference for in such a hypothesis as to be found the least amount of arbitrariness. The way with possibilities is prohibited. Should there be two hypotheses which both explained the world then a strict test must be applied as to which of the two better satisfies that demand of economy. He who can manage this explanation with the simpler and more known forces, especially the mechanical ones he who deduces the existing edifice of the world out of the smallest possible number of forces will always be preferred to him who allows the more educated and less known forces and these more over in greater number to carry on a world creating play. So then we see in pedigrees endeavoring to remove the superfluity of hypotheses from the doctrine of anaxagoras. The first hypothesis which falls as unnecessary is that of the anaxagorean news for its assumption is much too complex to explain anything so simple as motion. After all, it is only necessary to explain the two kinds of motion, the motion of a body towards another and the motion away from another. To, if our present becoming is a segregating although not a complete one, then in pedigrees asked what prevents complete segregation, evidently a force works against it that is a latent motion of attraction. Further, in order to explain that chaos. A force must already have been at work a movement is necessary to bring about this complicated entanglement. Therefore periodical preponderance of that one and the other forces certain they are opposites the force of attraction is still at work for otherwise there would be no things at all everything would be segregated. This is the actual fact two kinds of motion the news does not explain them on the contrary love and hatred indeed we certainly see that these move as well as that the new smooths. Now the conception of the primal state undergoes a change it is the most blessed with anaxagoras it was the chaos before the architectural work the heap of stones as it were upon the building site. Three in pedigrees had conceived the thought of a tangential force originated by revolution and working against gravity day cello one page 284 Schopenhauer w a w two three 90. He considered the continuation of the circular movement according to an axe agris impossible. It would result in a world that is the contrary of ordered motion. If the particles were infinitely makes pale melt then one would be able to break us under the bodies without any exertion of power they would not cohere or hold together they would be as dust. The forces which press the atoms against one another in which gives stability to the mass in pedigrees calls love. It is a molecular force a constituted force of the bodies for against an axe agris one the chaos already presupposes motion. Do nothing prevented the complete segregation three our bodies would be dust forms how can motion exist if there are not counter motions and all bodies for an ordered permanent circular motion impossible only a world. He assumes the world itself to be in effect of the night coast at poor Roy I the influences of malevolent spirits. How do distant things operate on one another sun upon earth if everything was still in a world that would be impossible. Therefore at least two moving powers which must be inherent in things by why infinite onto beings. Transgression of experience an axe agris meant the chemical atoms and pedigrees drive the assumption of four kinds of chemical atoms. He took the aggregate states to be essential and heat to be coordinated. Therefore the aggregate states through repulsion and attraction matter in four forms. Six the periodical principle is necessary seven with the living beings and pedigrees will also deal still on the same principle here also he denies purposeiveness is greatest deed with an axe agris a dualism. By the symbolism of sexual love here as in the platonic fable the longing after oneness shows itself and here likewise as shown that once a greater unity already existed. Were this greater unity established and this would again strive after a still greater one. The conviction of the unity of everything living guarantees that once there was an immense living something of which we are pieces that is probably those fires itself. He is the most blessed deity. Everything was connected only through love therefore in the highest degree appropriate. Love has been torn to pieces and splintered by hatred. Love has been divided into her elements and killed bereft of life in the world. No living individuals originate. Eventually everything is segregated and now our period begins. He opposes the Anaxagorean primal mixture by a primal discord. Love blind as she is with furious haste again throws the elements one against another endeavoring to see whether she can bring them back to life again or not. Here and there she is successful. It continues a presentiment originates in the living beings that they are to strive after still higher unions than home and the primal state arrows. It is a terrible crime to kill life for thereby one works back to the primal discord. Everything will be again one single life the most blissful state. The Pythagorean Orphean doctrine reinterpreted in the manner of natural science and pedigrees consciously masters both means of expression. Therefore he is the first retor. Political aims, the double nature, the agonal and the loving, the compassionate attempt of the Hellenic total reform. All in organic manner has originated out of organic. It is dead organic matter, corpse and man. Six, democrat is the greatest possible simplification of a hypothesis. One, there is motion, therefore vacuum, therefore a non existent thinking is motion to if there is a non existent, it must be indivisible. That is absolutely filled. Division is only explicable in case of empty spaces and pores. The non existent alone is an absolutely porous thing. Three, the secondary qualities of matter. Namo, laws or customs. Not of matter in itself for establishment of the primary qualities of the atamo indivisible particles. We're in homogeneous, we're in heterogeneous. Five, the aggregate states of emphatic lease for elements presuppose only the homogeneous atoms they themselves cannot therefore be onto beings. Six, motion is connected indissolubly with the atoms, the effect of gravity, Epicureus, critique. What does gravity signify in an infinite vacuum? Seven, thinking is the motion of the fire atoms, soul, life, perceptions of the senses, value of materialism and its embarrassment. Plato and democracies, the hermit like homeless noble searcher for truth. Democracies and the Pythagoreans together find the basis of natural sciences. What are the causes which have interrupted a flourishing science of experimental physics in antiquity after democracies? Seven, Anaxagoras has taken from Heraclitus the idea that in every becoming and in every being the opposites are together. He felt strongly the contradiction that our body has many qualities and he pulverized it in the belief that he had now dissolved it into his true qualities. Plato, first Heraclitian, later Skeptic. Everything, even thinking, is in a state of flux. Brought through Cyclades to the permanence of the good, the beautiful, these assumed as entertatid. All generic ideals partake of the idea of the good, the beautiful, and they too are therefore entertatid, being as the sole partakes of the idea of life. The idea is formless through Pythagoras meta-psychosis has been answered the question how we can know anything about the ideas. Plato's then skepticism in Parmenides, refutation of ideology. Eight, conclusion, Greek thought during the tragic ages, pessimistic or artistically optimistic, their judgment about life implies more. The one flight from the becoming, ought, unity, ought, artistic play, deep distrust of reality, nobody assumes a good God who has made everything optimal. Pythagoreans, religious sect, Anaxamander, Empedocles, together, Iliates, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus together, Democritus, the world without moral and aesthetic meaning, pessimism of chance. If one placed a tragedy before all these, the three former would see it in it the mirror of the fatality of existence, Parmenides, a transitory appearance. Heraclitus and Anaxagoras and artistic edifice and the image of the world laws, Democritus, the result of machines. With Socrates, optimism begins and optimism no longer artistic with teleology and faith in the good God, faith in the enlightened good man, dissolution of the instincts. Socrates breaks with the hitherto prevailing knowledge and culture he intends returning to the old citizen virtue and to the state. Plato dissociates himself from the state when he observes that the state has become identical with the new culture. The Socratic skepticism is a weapon against the hitherto prevailing culture and knowledge. End of section 12.