The Later Ionian School

Article 4. The Later Ionian School

These philosophers have been grouped by historians as “The Later Ionians” for the reason that they attacked the problem raised by the Earlier Ionian School, and also because the most notable philosophers of the group were Ionians by birth or descent.

Like the Earlier Ionian School, these philosophers sought the answer to the question, “What is the original world-stuff?”

a) Heraclitus fBorn about;o b. c.L

Life: Heraclitus was born at Ephesus. It is probable that he studied under Xenophanes, the Eleatic. He was a man of in-

mind, stubborn in his opinions, and well pleased with the title of self-made philosopher. He had little but contempt for the authority of earlier and contemporary teachers.

Work.: Heraclitus wrote a book On Nature. of which parts survive He expressed his doctrine in such a vague manner that he merited the sobriquet of “The…Obscured We have an account of his teachings from Plato (5-4 century b. c.) and from Aristotle (4 century b. c.)

Doctrine: The world-stuff is a subtle substance, ethereal and invisible, which has the nature of fire. Of this fire all things are made by a downward or quenching movement of condensation. To the primal fire all things tend to return by an upward or kindling movement of rarefaction. These processes are going on continuously; things are in a constant flux; nothing is stable. Therefore, all is becoming; there is no stable being.

The change which produces things from the primal fire is attended by strife, i. e., by the clash of opposites, viz., the thing from which the change is made, and the thing to which the change is made. But the change which reduces things to the primordial fire is harmonious, as things conciliated fuse in the unity of their original source.

The world which we now behold will be reduced to the primordial fire, and another world will emerge; this, in turn, will be reduced to fire, and still another world will be produced, and so on indefinitely through the endless process of perpetual becoming (infinite series of worlds).

The primordial fire is living and intelligent. It is the Logos or world-soul, as well as the world-body. It is the Deity. It is a sort of world-governing, all-pervading reason, as well as the substance which makes the bulk or mass of the bodily universe. Though intelligent, the primordial fire is not personal nor free; its transformations go on by blind necessity.

The human soul is a particle of the purest form of the primordial fire. It must be kept dry. The dry soul is wise. When it is moistened, reason is dethroned. Reason is to be trusted, but the senses are not reliable, for the senses show us an apparent stability in many things in the world, whereas there is no such thing as stability in anything. The soul does not survive death, but fuses with the primordial fire and is unified with it. Sometimes Heraclitus forgets this doctrine, and speaks of the rewards and punishments awaiting man’s soul in a life to come.

Remarks: Heraclitus agrees in one point with the Eleatics: he denies the validity of sense knowledge and asserts the trustworthiness of reason. For the rest, his doctrine is flatly opposed to the Eleatic theory. The Eleatics said, “All is being; there is no becoming.” Heraclitus said. “All is becoming; there is no stable being.”

Heraclitus did not conceive the primordial fire as a mere mass of matter shaped into various accidental forms (mechanistic monism), but as an all-pervading reason operating by its own power (dynamism) according to fatalistic necessity (determinism), forming bodies that differ essentially (pluralism), and reducing these again to its own substance.

We discern in the doctrine of Heraclitus the old Ionian notes: the quest for the original world-stuff; the theory of an infinite series of worlds; the notion of wet and dry elements in the world-stuff; the doctrine of a living universe (hylozo-ism).

The influence of Heraclitus on subsequent philosophers, and in particular upon Plato, was very great. His service to philosophy, like that of most pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, was not that he formed a theory about things, but that this theory stressed the necessity of finding the true explanation of things. His service was not that he answered questions in a fantastic manner, but that he asked questions in a pointed manner.

b) Empedocles (about 40 5-45 b. c.)

Life: Empedocles was born at Agrigentum in Sicily, and is said to have lived sixty years, but we have no certain knowledge of the time or place of his death. He was skilled in the medical and magical arts and took an active interest in matters political.

Works: Empedocles wrote two poems, the one philosophical* On Nature, and the other theological. Purifications. These works together make up some five thousand verses, of which about 450 survive. Empedocles is revealed in his work as a man of vivid imagination, possessed of a polished style. Aristotle (4 century b. c.), from whom we learn much about this philosopher, calls him “chief of rhetoricians.”

r Doctrine: The world-stuff is not a single homogeneous substance, but contains four fundamental essences or elements, /viz.: air, earth, water, and fire. These elements, changeless in themselves, by their commingling and separation, compose the varied and changing world. Two forces play upon the elements—Va unifying force (love) a separating force (hate). At first love held all together in a sphere; then the centrifugal power of hate caused the sphere to break up. Love exerted its force anew, and drew together the parts or atoms of the scattered elements, mingling these in various combinations, and thus the things in the world were formed. The love and hate of Empedocles do not appear to be mere qualities inherent /in matter, but separate and substantial realities. The forming of things produced through the clashing of love and hate was not a reasoned or planned production, but the outcome pf mere chance.

Plants appeared as the first of living things on the earth. Then heads, arms, legs, and trunks of animals were formed, and these drew together into various monstrous combinations, some of which were all heads, some all legs, etc. Many of these combinations were not fitted for life, and they died. Other combinations were well balanced, and they survived as animals. Man, like other animals, was formed in the manner described.

All living things have sense-knowledge (sensation) and intelligence. And all living things grow—a phenomenon which Empedocles explains by declaring that the elemental fire in them continuously strives to reach the fire which is in the

Man has a soul as well as a body: but Empedocles draws no nice distinction between these two essential human parts: each seems to be composed of the elements. When a man dies, his soul breaks up into its molecules, and then these reassemble to form a new soul for a new organism. Man’s duty is to preserve in himself the force of love, and to resist the force of hate; but the precise nature of this duty and the manner of accomplishing it are not explained in the teaching of Empedocles.

What Empedocles thought about God is obscure. According to Aristotle, he taught that all the elements are contained in God, but that the force of hate does not affect them there. Still, Empedocles does not make God master of the universe, for hate prevails sometimes in the bodily world. If God is identified with love and the four elements, we must call Empedocles a pantheist, or, at least, a semi-pantheist.

Remarks: It is not easy to classify Empedocles. Some call him Eleatic, for he proposes changeless elements as the world-stuff and denies the theory of perpetual becoming. Some call him Pythagorean, for he teaches a kind of transmigration or reconstruction of souls. He might be classed with the Atomists —of whom we are to speak in the next Article—for he taught that the elements were shattered into particles and that these came together to form things. Certainly we can call him a mechanist, for he taught that things are formed by the accidental union of elements moved by a force outside themselves. We have listed Empedocles with the Ionians because of his quest for the world-stuff, and because he accepted the world of reality at face value.

This philosopher is important for his influence upon later philosophical discussion, especially that conducted by the Atomists.

In passing it is to be remarked that Empedocles taught a peculiarly Darwinian type of evolution. Notice his “survival of the Attest” theory. It may also be mentioned that his “four elements” were accepted by philosophers as the Anal classifl-cation of elemental substances for almost sixteen centuries.

c) Anaxagoras (about 500-428 b. c.)

Life: Anaxagoras was born at Clazomenae in Ionia. He settled at Athens, where he conducted a school. He was a friend of the great Pericles, and the dramatist Euripides was his pupil. He was once charged with impiety—usually a fatal imputation—but Pericles somehow saved him from condemnation and got him out of Athens. Anaxagoras retired to Lamp-sacus in Ionia, where he established a school and resided until death.

Works: Anaxagoras wrote a book On Nature, of which some fragments have been preserved in the collection of Simplicius (6 century after Christ).

Doctrine: The original world-stuff was a mass of tiny particles of all the things that are found in the world—flesh, bones, metals, etc. This mass was inert; it existed in a state of rest. Then a whirling motion was given to it by the action of a divine mind. By force of this motion the particles of matter were separated out, and then came together, each with its kind, to form the things found in the world. The divine mind which moved matter is simple, i. e., not composed of parts. It knows all things, and has power over all.

Remarks: Anaxagoras represents an immense stride forward in the development of philosophy. He introduces a dualistic doctrine (matter and mind) to supplant the old theories af a purely material and dynamic world-stuff, and he escapes the mechanism and semi-pantheism of Empedocles. True, Anaxagoras does not make the Divine Mind the creator of the universe, but only its intelligent mover. Still, the greatest credit is due this philosopher for his getting at the idea of something above the nature of bodily things intelligently controlling the world.

4. Other Later Ionians.

Historians usually include in this School:

i—Diogenes of Apollonia, and

,2—Archelaus of Athens.

These philosophers did not contribute to the development of philosophy, but reverted to the hylozoism of the Earlier Ionian School.

Rzmazkl the Later Ionian School. Anaxagoras was, bv all odds, the most important member of this School. The others, even Empedocles, were important mainly for the influence they exerted upon later philosophers. {Anaxagoras offered a new and striking theory of separate mind to which matter is subjected. He was the first known philosopher to introduce such dualism into the interpretation of the universe, although, according to Aristotle, he had a predecessor in the unknown Hermotinus of Clazomenae.