BETWEEN PYTHAGORAS AND HERACLITUS

[Beginning with the present entry, my PreSocratica Sempervirens sequence resumes.]

With the pre-Socratic philosopher, poet, social commentator, and religious critic Xenophanes of Colophon (570 BC-480 BC) we are returning to the proper chronological order, disrupted by our detour into latter-day Pythagoreanism of Philolaus and Archytas (see my entries on them posted on December 18^th – 19^th, 2013.)

Xenophanes is often considered as the founder of the Eleatic school of philosophical thinking, whose most famous alumnus was Parmenides, who is himself often described as the school’s founder. We are however better off treating him separately from the Eleatics, both on his own merit and to avoid the controversy as to whether he was an Eleatic or not, which is totally unnecessary. (Let the aspiring scholars debate this PhD fodder…)

Xenophanes is most renowned for having explicitly rejected Greek polytheism and anthropomorphism, and his development of the concept of One God, who is abstract, universal, unchanging, immobile, and forever present. For this reason, he is often seen as the first explicit monotheist in Western philosophy of religion. I am, however, convinced, as I have asserted throughout all relevant sections of this work, that monotheism has been the religion of the Greek philosophers from the very start, which ought not to diminish, of course, his, Xenophanes’s, personal accomplishments as a champion of explicit monotheism.

Modern historiography of philosophy points out a curious fact, namely, that until the 1950’s, there existed some controversy over many aspects of the Xenophanes phenomenon, including whether or not he could be properly characterized as a philosopher. In today’s philosophical and classics discourse, it is asserted that he is recognized as one of the most important pre-Socratic philosophers. This is an interesting claim, and I am going to investigate it further at a later date, but so far it is true that among my glorified staple sources of philosophical historiography, Nietzsche and Russell, Xenophanes, although favorably mentioned, does not occupy a place among the greatest. As the reader may have noticed, Nietzsche does not include him in his wonderfully idealized company of the early Greek masters Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, and Socrates. Bertrand Russell does not give him a separate chapter either, mentioning Xenophanes in his big chapter on Heraclitus. But this mention is in itself worth taking a look at, and here it is, slightly contracted for the purpose of brevity:

“Between Pythagoras and Heraclitus there was a philosopher of less importance, namely Xenophanes. His date is uncertain, mainly determined by the fact that he alludes to Pythagoras, while Heraclitus alludes to him. He believed all things to be made of earth and water. He believed in one God, unlike men in thought and form, who “without toil swayeth all things by the force of his mind.” He made fun of the Pythagorean doctrine of transmigration, and believed it impossible to ascertain the truth in matters of theology (which is exactly my point, as expressed in my aphorism “if theological proof were available, who would then need the faith?!”). Xenophanes has his place in the succession of rationalists who were opposed to the mystical tendencies of Pythagoras and others, but as an independent thinker he is not of the first rank.”

This rather unflattering characterization, given to Xenophanes by Russell, needs further investigation in the light of the more recent claim concerning Xenophanes’ preeminent greatness, which will be done at a later date, as I have promised. In the meantime, let us next examine what Nietzsche has to say about Xenophanes in his Philosophy During the Tragic Age of the Greeks, which examination will certainly require a separate entry. As we are going to find out in tomorrow’s entry, Nietzsche and Russell sharply differ on the question of Xenophanes’ rationalism versus mysticism. Who is right?..