A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Vol.I by Johann Eduard Erdmann 1890

§44.] HERACLITUS.
53
54 FIRST PERIOD OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY. [§ 45 , h 2 .
S 44-
Heraclitus’ polemics against the Eleatics lower the superiority
of his point of view and render it one-sided in its turn,
though in a contrary way. This is still more markedly the case
with his disciples. When Cratylus outdid his master, and
declared it impossible to enter the same river not only twice
but even once, he thereby made Heraclitus a denier of all
Being. Thus it could come about that the sceptics,, who only
assume Non-Being, counted him among their number, and that
Aristotle classed him, the opponent of the anti-physical doctrines,
among the mere physiologers. In this an injustice is
indeed done to Heraclitus, but there was some ground for it.
U ence the problem of philosophy is to retain the Eleatic
Being by the side of the Becoming exalted by Heraclitus,
without, in so doing, relapsing into abstract metaphysics.
Hence it is necessary to assume, in agreement with the Eleatics
but in opposition to Heraclitus, an unchangeable Being. But
it must be conceived, in opposition to the Eleatics, as a physical
substance, and, in the spirit of Heraclitus, as a plurality, z.e.
a plurality of unchangeable substances or elements. Further,
it will be necessary to assume, in agreement with Heraclitus,
and in opposition to the assertions of the Eleatics, a real process.
But this process will not be, like that of Heraclitus,
a burning without a substratum, but one which the substrata
undergo. It will differ from that of the pure physiologers,
in that it will consciously rest upon metaphysical principles.
Empedocles is the man who was enabled by his nationality
and the course of his development to make this advance, and
to combine in his doctrine, not eclectically, but in an organic
whole, what previous philosophers had taught. Thus there is
not a single school among which he has not been counted with
an appearance of justification. For he recognises the chaotic
primeval mixture of Anaximander, the spherical form of
Xenophanes, the water of Thales, the air of Anaximenes,, the
earth and the fire of Parmenides and Heraclitus, the love of
the Eleatics, the strife of Heraclitus, the condensation and
rarefaction of Thales and Anaximenes, the mixture and separation
of Anaximander, and finally even the domination of
numerical relations in the mixtures,, like the Pythagoreans.
i?.—EMPEDOCLES.
F. W. Sturz : Empedocles Agrigetitinus. Lips. 1805. Karsten, l,c. Vol. ii.
Amst. 1838. Lommatsch : Die Weisheit des Empedokles. Berl. 1830.
Panzerbieter : Beitrdge zur Kritik 7ind Erkldrimg des Empedokles. Meiningen,
1854. Steinhart ; Empedokles., in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopaedia.
§ 45-
1. Empedocles, the son of Meton, born at Akragas (Agrigentum)
in Sicily as the descendant of a noble family, lived
probably from 01. 72-OI. 87. Famous for his patriotism,
eloquence and medical skill, he was indebted to the last,
together with many peculiarities in his mode of life, for his
reputation as a magician. His death was adorned with fabulous
details at an early period, in the interest of different views.
There is considerable authority for his familiarity with Pythagorean
doctrines ;
and even if chronology does not admit of
his being a disciple of Pythagoras personally, he has been
called a Pythagorean even by modern writers. Others, in
reliance on the reports which make him a disciple of Parmenides,
call him an 'Eleatic. Finally, the majority follow
the example of Aristotle (who had really no right to do so,
according to his own statements ;
vid. sub. 2.), and account him
one of the physiologers. But it is Plato’s mention of him
together with Heraclitus, which is justified also by the influence
of the Ephesian upon him, that assigns to him his proper
position. Of the writings of Empedocles, the titles of which
are stated variously, there have been preserved fragments of
two, the nrepl epua-ew? and the KaSap/mol. Some modern writers
regard the latter, and also the larpina, as subdivisions of the
former.
2. Empedocles agrees with the Eleacics in retaining unchsLngeable
Being, in opposition to the coming into existence,
which he declares impossible. But by admitting the factor of
plurality and materiality, which the Eleatics had denied, his
Being becomes a plurality of unchangeable elements, of which
he was the first to assert that they were four in number, while
he denied that they passed into one another. In this doctrine,
one is reminded of the Pythagoreans by the occurrence of the
number four, and of Heraclitus by his calling them daemons
and giving them the names of the popular deities, and by the
preference for Zeus or Fire. In addition to these unchangeable
substrata (p^w/xara, vXikoi apyai^ he regarded as principles