Skip to main content

Xenophanes a Reformer?

As we progress on our studies of the Presocratics, I am starting to see a deviation from the traditional thinking of the greeks. Homer presents us with gods who are human like and to some extent mundane, that do the same things as humans. I have a feeling that the Milesians' quest for an arche based on matter, physical things that are unique and "pure" like the water, air, and infinity, reflects the search for an origin different than the Homeric gods. An origin that is different from the human nature, savage and mundane.

According to A Presocratic Reader, Xenophanes rejected the Homeric Olympian gods. Although the book suggests that it is unclear if he agreed on one god or a god superior to all gods, he is the first philosopher to suggest a non-anthropomorfic god. A god that is unique for itself. Was he inspired by Anaximander's principle of the apeiron, that which is the boundless and mystical? I feel the he was indeed, because Anaximander's principle is the only non visible matter, compared to water and air,  beyond human immediate perception. This is the same material that Xenphanes' god is made of.

Xenophanes is a reformer in the sense that he introduced this god that looks different from the mythological gods because they were human like. To reinforce his view, Xenophanes believed that humans cannot ask questions an be certain of their answers. Xenophanes did not believe in "sure knowledge". He supported that human should be satisfied with "belief" or "opinion". I really like this because this reminds me of the definition that most of us gave to philosophy on our first day of class. We said that in philosophy we are not certain of what the true answer is, but what counts is the different answers people provide to one question.

Reading about Xenophanes showed me that we are starting to perceive a new way of thinking in the history of the beginning philosophy. Xenophanes represents a touch of originality, maybe the start of a philosophy that shapes the philosophy we like to relate to nowadays.

Comments

  1. Anne-Marie SchultzJanuary 19, 2017 at 1:24 PM

    I agree. He shows how new thoughts emerge in any particular cave.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle- The Politics Book 1

The Politics is a book dedicated to concepts of state, political communities. Aristotle starts his writing by defining state as a community of communities. All communities  aim for a good. The state is the largest community and embraces the rest. Because of this relationship, it aims at a deeper and larger good. Aristotle debunks the qualifications and conceptions people have for rulers of a certain community (king, statesman, householder, master). The mistake he identifies is people differentiating between rulers by the number of their subjects. Aristotle suggests politics should not be viewed this way but rather as a compound composed of elements. This statement sets the tone for book 1. His mission now is to reveal these elements.  According to Aristotle, looking at the origin will reveal "the clearest view" of the essence of a state. Family is first elements identified. Family is the union of people, starting with that of man and woman, who need each...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Republic- Book 3

Book III starts by exploring the concept of courage. The idea of the Gods for the Athenians is something that is bothering Plato. His main concern is if the traditional way of thinking about the Gods is fostering real virtues of courage.   This dialogue makes us understand the importance of questioning the consequences of things that we hear or read. Socrates questions Homeric writing “ It’s not that they are not poetic and sweet for the many to hear, but the more poetic they are, the less should they be heard by boys and men who must be free and accustomed to fearing slavery more than death.” (387b) It seems then that the media is that shapes what we ought to fear and we ought not to fear. This is interesting because I am currently taking a class where we are talking about End of Life and how currently the media has distorted our perception of death. If an alien were to land on earth and tried to understand the concept of human death and got his first glance from a TV news fe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference and Reality per the Atomists

The two founders of atomism, Leucippus and Democritus, took the well accepted ideas of Parmenides about the being and the non-being. They claimed that all that we see is composed of small elements, the atoms, these are the being. Another component of the physical world is the void, the non-being. Atoms, as product of random motion, enter void to give it a sense of being. What separates the theory of the Atomists from Parmenides is that their atoms are unlimited in amount, compared to Parmenides’ being as one and whole. I would like to briefly explore what I think are fundamental implications of two of the concepts covered by the atomists’ theory. I would like to give my opinion on the implications of the atomists idea of atoms birthing difference and their idea of what they consider real. The different combinations of atoms give rise to the different things seen. Assuming that all combinations of atoms give rise to differences can have consequences on how we view equality. Can ...
1 comment
Read more