ARISTOTLE AND THE EARLIER PERIPATETICS vol.I by Eduard Zeller, B.F.C.Costelloe 1897

;
;
METAPHYSICS 30?
•
from being necessary ' to explain phenomena such as
those of movement, would rather be inconsistent with
the characteristic movement of bodies and the differences
of weight, for in a vacuum nothing could have
any particular place towards which it would tend, and
everything would necessarily move with equal quickness.
2 He finds that movement and its different kinds
are, in the Atomic Philosophy, simply presupposed, and
not deduced from first principles. 3 He objects that the
school completely overlooks the teleology of nature,
and that instead of giving us any principles on which
phenomena rest, it refers us to an unsolved necessity,
or to the assertion that .in fact things have always been
as they are. 4 There are further polemical passages,
which can only here be mentioned in passing : against
the theory of an infinite number of co-existent worlds ;
against Democritus' explanation of
sense-perception
against his doctrine concerning the soul, 7 and his
acceptance of sensory appearance as truth. 8
The natural philosophy of Anaxagoras is
s
6
so closely
connected with the physics of the Atomists and Bmpe-
1
Phyg. iv. 7-9, of. c. 6. More
4
See Zeller, Ph. d. Gr. pt.
on this later. i. 788 sqq., and Gen. An. v. 8 vers.
2
Phyg. iv. 8, 214, b, 28 sqq. fin., where Aristotle's criticism of
Be Ccelo, i. 7, 275, b, 29, 277, a, the mechanical explanation of
33 sqq. ii. 13, 294, b. 30, iii. 2, nature by Democritus, is very
300, b, 8. With regard to the similar to Plato's criticism in the
theory of Weight held by Demo- Phcedo of that proposed by
critus, see further Be Casio, iv. 2, Anaxagoras.
6 ;
as to the influence of Ari-
5
Be Ccelo, i. 8 ;
see Zellee,
stotle's attack upon the changes ibid. 797, 2.
which Epicurus made in the^ " Be Sengu, c. 4, 442, a, 29.
atomic theory, see Zellee, Ph. ' Be J n. i. 3, 406, b, 15, cf . u.
A. Gr. pt. iii. a, 378. 2, 403, b, 29, 405, a, 8.
3
8
Metajih. xii. 6, 1071, b, 31. Zellee, ibid. 822.
x 2
308 ARISTOTLE
docles that it is open for the most part to the same
objections.
The infinite number of his primary bodies is
not only needless, inasmuch as a small number would do
equally well, but it is also mistaken inasmuch as it would
make all knowledge of things impossible. Again, since
the primary differences of kinds of matter are limited in
number, so must be the primary bodies also.
Since all
bodies have a natural magnitude, their constituent
paris (the so-called 6fj.oiofj.sprf) cannot be of indefinite
size ; and since all bodies are limited, there cannot be
in each thing, as Anaxagoras was logically obliged to
hold, constituents belonging to the infinitely various
kinds of matter. 1
looked for in the
Further, if primary matter is to be
simplest bodies, few of the 6fioio/j.spi)
could be considered as primary matter. 2 Anaxagoras
recognises the existence of change in things, but the doctrine
of the unchangeability of their constituent parts is
inconsistent with that admission. The continuity of
bodies is negated by the infinite number of their constituents,
3
in spite of Anaxagoras's weak attack upon the
.theory of empty space. 4
Aristotle finds that Anaxagoras
is as little able to account for differences of weight as was
Empedocles. 5 The original mingling of all kinds of
matter, as Anaxagoras states it, would be unthinkable ;
6
1
Pliys. i. 4, 187, b, 7 sqq ;
the latter part o£ ch. viii. infra.
De Cwlo, iii. 4. For a farther '
Phys. iv. 6, 213, a, 22.
5
remark as to the infinite in space, De Cwlo, iv. 2, 309, a, 19.
see Phys. iii. 5, 205, b, 1. " Besides the physical objec-
2
De Coslo, iii. 4, 302, b, 14. tions which are raised against' it
3
Gen. et Corr. i. 1 ; Phys. in Metaph. i. 8, Gen. et Con: i.
iii. 4, 203, a, 19. Further objec- 10, 327, b, 19, Aristotle asserts
tions of a similar kind, but not both of this statement and of the
especially directed against Anax- corresponding one (that, at all
agoras, will be dealt with in times, everything is in eve y-